According to Career Cast, astronomers are 20th on a list of best jobs to have!
I was rather surprised to see the income listed as over $100,000. But then, long-tenured professors may skew that upward. My own life may drag that number down a bit. It might even make it imaginary.
Still, the list is obviously flawed, since biologists rate #4. But then, I guess a soft science job would be above a hard science job; otherwise we’d have a Kelvin-Helmholtz Rayleigh-Taylor instability as soon as the list was disturbed.
Oh, sorry: for you scientists who study squishy things, here’s what that means.
OK, just to make sure since there are so many humor-impaired people out there: that was a joke! I’m kidding. I love biologists; without them I’d have nothing to make fun of at all without it being mean.
Tip o’ the tentacle to Frank Branda.
January 6th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Biologist are number 4 because they do not have work as hard.
January 6th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
I’ve seen that figure before on astronomer pay. I think it’s coming from the same BS source which only includes tenured faculty and such. At least half of astronomers are postdocs (<50k) or grad students (<25k). They can not possibly be included in that figure.
January 6th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Gaah. Psychologists score below typists in job satisfaction. We beat out clergy though. I wonder if that means something?
January 6th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Who’s number one? that’s right…
January 6th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
There’s surface tension in the interface between the soft and hard sciences, so the disturbance has to be above a certain point for the Kelvin-Holmholtz instability to develop.
January 6th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
So, Parole Officer ranks better than Astronomer?!? That’s … really surprising, and just a little disturbing.
January 6th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Q: How many biologists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Four — One to change it and three to write the environmental-impact statement.
January 6th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
As a biologist, with more than a passing interest in astronomy and physics in general, let me just say that both factions know how to party like it’s the end of the world. Speaking of which, in terms of likely scenarios that might kill us, I say the biological is far more likely than the astronomical…though both are worthy of preventative funding.
Also, biologists in general tend to be the least religious/spiritual of any discipline, so that obviously shows our far sharper critical thinking skills. For every Francis Collins with disruptive personal religious views in the biology faction, there are two such as Charles Townes and climatologist John T. Houghton in the physics.
OK, that was somewhat of a rant in attempting to understand how generally rational and well award winning scientists can compartmentalize their thinking and belief in mythical and invisible creatures. Hey, I believe that saucer pirates have souls, and please don’t tell me I’m just eating elbow pasta.
January 6th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
When a problem gets too complicated for the physicists, they hand the problem to the chemists.
When a problem gets too complicated for the chemists, they hand it over to the biologists.
Finally, when biologists think it is too complicated, they give the problem to the sociologists.
January 6th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Ha! Biologists know about Kelvin-Holmholtz instability if their area of knowledge encompasses limnology. Ya gotta know a lot about many disciplines if you want to be a biologist…unlike folks in those more narrow and limited (i.e. easy) fields such as astronomy and physics. You have bio-envy, I can tell. heh-heh ;->
January 6th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Without mathematicians, you are ALL just drawing pictures on the cave wall.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Q: How many mathematical logicians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. They can’t do it, but they can easily prove that it can be done.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Interesting how probably half the top 20 are based on or have a math component. I can be 5, 6 or 18 depending on how much I want to fudge my CV.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
This reminds me of a joke.
A mathematician, an engineer, and a physicist are all attending a Nerd Conference, and happen to be staying at the same hotel. In the middle of the night, a statistically unlikely fire ignites the curtains in their respective rooms.
The engineer wakes up, sees that the curtains are on fire, and runs to the bathroom. She fills the ice bucket with water, runs out, and douses the flames. Then, not wanting to miss the vendor hall tomorrow, she goes back to sleep.
The physicist wakes up, sees that the curtains are on fire, and runs to the bathroom. He fills a water cup up with water, runs out, and throws the cup of water on the flames. Seeing that water does in fact put out fire, he runs *back* into the bathroom, fills up the ice bucket with water, and returns to douse the rest of the flames. Not wanting to miss the keynote tomorrow, he goes back to sleep.
The mathematician wakes up, sees that the curtains are on fire, and goes to the bathroom to fill up a cup of water. Returning, the mathematician throws the water on the flames, sees that water does indeed douse fire… and not wanting to miss giving the keynote tomorrow, goes back to sleep. Induction is for the plebes.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Phil, with 2 awesome best selling books under your belt, we know you’re raking in millions!
January 6th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Geologists come in thirtieth, neat!
What if you want to do planetary science, which is basically what happens when astronomy and geology has a baby? Does that average out to 25th?
January 6th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Ha! Meteorologist is 15th… That news would be better to me if I could actually get a job.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Chiropractor rates above chemist, and both are beaten out by dental hygenist. Whoever compiled this list has to be on crack.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Pat, the way I heard the end of the joke is, the mathematician sees that a little bit of water douses a bit of the flame, induces that a lot more water will put the fire completely. He says, “Ah, a solution exists!” and goes back to sleep.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Who’s number 55? That’s right, CHIROPRACTORS!
Physicians are only 142 with nurses at 143. Surgeon is 156. I mean, these are stressful jobs but is CASHIER really a better career choice?
January 6th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Phil, let us tread carefully with bio bashing: see xkcd #520.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Hard engineering wins hands down, it’s more fun working with things that might fail explosively rather than just die.
I have something to say! It’s better to burn out than to fade away!
January 7th, 2009 at 12:35 am
The joke I heard is that the mathematician wakes up and sees that one of the curtains is on fire. So he then sets fire to the other curtain — thus reducing the problem to one for which a solution has already been shown to exist.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:37 am
The Kelvin Helmoltz is is a velocity sheer instability. The Rayleigh Taylor is the density one. Note also that the system is clearly unstable to R-T as biologists are denser than astronomers, even though they are higher on the list.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Like Shane,my job could probably be described as a bit from each of 5, 6, 18 & 147 with a bit of 148 thrown in once in a while.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:57 am
A mathematician, a biologist and a physicist are sitting in a street café watching people going in and coming out of the house on the other side of the street.
First they see two people going into the house. Time passes. After a while they notice three persons coming out of the house.
The physicist: “The measurement must have been inaccurate.”
The biologist: “They must have reproduced.”
The mathematician: “Now, if exactly one person enters the house, then it will be empty again.”
January 7th, 2009 at 1:31 am
The architect (or computer engineer): “I don’t remember putting a back door on that house”
January 7th, 2009 at 1:36 am
Just make sure you don’t cross the biologists too much: http://xkcd.com/520/
January 7th, 2009 at 1:40 am
I love biologists; without them I’d have nothing to make fun of at all without it being mean.
XKCD is of similar mind: http://xkcd.com/520/.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Am I glad to see that aerospace engineers (#33) rank an amazing 6 places above… uhm… bookkeeping
January 7th, 2009 at 2:55 am
An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician are driving through Ireland. Suddenly they see a black sheep standing in the fields.
The astronomer: “Ha, every sheep in Ireland is black!”
The physicist: “At least one sheep in Ireland is black!”
The mathematician: “At least there is one sheep in Ireland that has at least one side being black!”
January 7th, 2009 at 3:24 am
I’m a software engineer (#5) but also have a degree in Astronomy (#20). Does that really make me a philosopher (#12)?
January 7th, 2009 at 6:31 am
I just want to be Buckaroo Banzai when I grow up. He does it all!
January 7th, 2009 at 6:36 am
I see that aster1man has already noted the #2 reason why the joke wasn’t nerdy enough for me. The #1 reason is of course that no one has spelled Helmholtz correctly, as the von Helmholtz that originated the Helmholtz coil.
[Googling him I learned that he had the magnificent handle Hermann von Helmholtz.]
One, but he has to wait until the individual dies – then he can remove it to go on and localize the extant population with the same observed sleeve chirality; mating behavior and so speciation seems to be contingent upon it, but this must be considered a mere historical accident of bulb evolution.
January 7th, 2009 at 7:23 am
How many electricians does it take to change a light bulb?
One.
How come philosopher comes in at #12? Does that even count as a job? Because I do a lot of philosophizing and I imagine I’d have a really hard time if I tried to convince somebody to pay me for it. “Hey, guess what, everybody? The universe doesn’t have an inherent purpose, because purpose is a human-created concept. The only purpose in our lives is the one we define for ourselves! That’ll be $50 please.”
January 7th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Levi in NY, sorry mate you’ve failed as a philosopher. Too succinct. You need to expand it to say 500 pages of unintelligible rhetoric. We would then need at least 3 other philosophers to write another 3 books disproving what your wrote with equally impenetrable prose. You would then throw a hissy fit, commit suicide leaving note that is essentially an incoherent rant that finishes with an enigmatic, “leave the money on the fridge”.
Here’s a few philosopher light bulb jokes from http://www.ahajokes.com/lig041.html
Q: How many philosophers does it take to change a lightbulb ?
A: Hmmm… well there’s an interesting question isn’t it ?
Q: How many philosophers does it take to change a lightbulb ?
A: Three. One to change it and two to stand around arguing over whether or not the lightbulb exists.
Q: How many philosophers does it take to change a lightbulb ?
A: Define “lightbulb”.
Q: How many philosophers does it take to change a lightbulb ?
A: Two. One to change it and one to think deeply and come up with a real gem, such as “Well there you are, standing on a chair, changing a lightbulb. Here we see the difference between a cat and a dog. If you have a cat, it looks up at you, thinks ‘What are you doing ?’, and walks off. But if you have a dog, it’s looking up at you and thinking ‘Well, I dunno what you’re doing, but I love you anyway.’
January 7th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Aha! I see Phil’s weak KH-fu has been noted. I was wondering what would be driving the shear stress between the rankings. And how would you define the Richardson number, I wonder? Otherwise it’ll be hard to predict the onset of instability. I think we should add some heat and see if we can get Rayleigh-Benard convection. That’d be cool. And dorky.
Another alternate ending to the fire joke: the mathematician goes into the physicist’s room and hands him a bucket. Having reducing the problem to one already solved, he goes back to bed.
How many astronomers does it take to change a lightbulb? 10^5. Plus or minus 10^8.
January 7th, 2009 at 8:06 am
PS…
I love the phrasing for the description of a mathematician: “Applies mathematical theories and formulas to teach or solve problems in a business, educational, or industrial climate.” Mathematicians teach. Oh yeah, or solve, y’know, problems and stuff.
I think they should have used Erdos’s summary for what a mathematician does: “turns coffee into theorems”.
I like this quote too: “After the top three math-oriented careers, the rest of the top 10 read like a who’s who of well-educated professions”. Well, yeah. Who woulda thunk it? Business-jargon-spouting middle manager isn’t in the top 10? How surprising! And the bottom 10 involve hefting crap around. Hmm, I’m using my supermathbrain to see a pattern in these data…
January 7th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Careful who you insult there Mr. Astronomer – http://xkcd.com/520/
January 7th, 2009 at 8:31 am
We should be # 1!!!
January 7th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Matt,
I have a math-professor friend that describes his profession in the geekiest way: with a Lord of the Rings analogy.
He says that in a world of science, mathematics is the one evil ring that rules them all.
Three Rings for the astronomers under the sky,
Seven for the Geologists in their halls of stone,
Nine for Biologists doomed to die,
One for the Physicist on his dark throne
In the Land of Dark Matter where the Shadows lie.
Mathematics to rule them all, Mathematics to find them,
Mathematics to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Science where the Shadows lie.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:25 am
This list is stupid. Their methodology ignores humanity and personality. Some people thrive with quotas and deadlines. I personally like going to the same office and lab every day as I like stability. I find my variety in the design work that I do. I have a good friend who loves his sales job because he’s out and about every day. I dated a woman who was an EMT (#196). She *loved* the job. The actors (#170) I have met seem to enjoy their lives.
The top three jobs involve math and statistics? Can you say “researcher bias,” children? I knew you could!
Summary: ***FAIL!***
January 7th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Say Phil, there is a job opening as NASA Administrator.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Off topic (pls excuse)- Phil – What the heck is this flash of light that Wired is writing about (the link from my name)? It isn’t a Supernova apparently.
I actually really like the fact that we haven’t figured out everything about the universe yet
.
Keep the surprises coming I say!
January 7th, 2009 at 9:44 am
@ Phil
Comic timing is better on that one. I’ve also heard, “Sees that water will indeed put out fire, leaves the remaining blaze as an exercise for the fire department, and goes back to sleep.”
January 7th, 2009 at 9:46 am
@Ryan
No, actually you’ll end up with a casting error on compile
January 7th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Airline pilot is 116? I guess they threw in all the commuter guys into the mix to make it seem so horrible. Besides, the pilot field to be in is the USAF! There is nothing like having TWO 125 TON aircraft in such close proximity that one of them reaches out and touches the other one while flying at 300 KIAS! Now THAT is just too cool!
Click for an image I posed for: http://www.aviationarthangar.com/frs19.html That’s me in the Receiver on AR313. Ah, those were the days!
January 7th, 2009 at 10:13 am
“Say Phil, there is a job opening as NASA Administrator.
”
I will give you odds on that going to Charlie Bolden.
See: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/bolden-cf.html
January 7th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
We need more collaboration between physicists and biologists. Consider possible collaborative experiments which would combine physics and biology. One such experiment might be accelerating two rats to relativistic velocity, and smashing them together and counting the rat particles that would be emitted. Perhaps we could discover a new elementary particle, which would be found only in living matter, and which could tie the field of quantum mechanics with the emerging biological science of consciousness.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Dang aster1man, you beat me to it! Still, here’s the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Taylor_instability
January 7th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Hmmm, yes, Rayleigh Taylor is more appropriate. I’ve edited the text.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Wow, Software Engineer is #5!?!?! Take that network administrator punks!
January 7th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
One such experiment might be accelerating two rats to relativistic velocity, and smashing them together
Despite my vast and skeptical dislike of government, I would *totally* approve the funding of that. I’ll even approve a temporary sales tax to fund if you let me pull the trigger.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Rats wouldn’t work. The acceleration would be enough to turn them to paste so then you’re just smashing rat goo.