I'm not too clear on your disillusionment. I suppose it's a deeply personal issue, but if it comes down to the esoteric nature of academia, I'm not certain I can understand.

Be it materials science, polymer research, or an analysis of home spaces in Toni Morisson's Beloved, the intellectual heavy lifting of academia is often labored over seemingly insignificant minutia. Some of this is incomprehensible to someone that doesn't have a background in the subject, but it often leads to different ways of thinking.

But anyway, think of it this way: the US economy is in such a funk that your grad student endeavors will be on the cheap, and you'll be somewhat buffered by the warm womb of the university.

Congrats on the freedom and venting, in any case.

You won't be happy in the private sector, either.

Probably time to buy lottery tickets.

Zoidberg you made a difficult choice but hopefully it's the right one for you (and it sounds as though it is). Good luck in sorting yourself out but June!

Now, onto science and discussion of science. I've mentioned in another thread a while ago that i do not consider medicine or social sciences to be science. They may include things like mathematics, physics, biology and chemistry to found their principles but nothing about them is 'certain' (TM) . I know a lot of people would hate me for this conclusion and i would want them to know that i hold those subjects in no less of a regard than actual sciences just that i think the descriptor is incorrect in regards to the application of those precepts for the particular subject in question.
Social science (i'm presuming all types of this broad heading) is pretty complex and helps inform a lot of decisions from local council decisions on bin-placement and country-wide legislation on healthcare to the desired amount of light in a classroom for (generally) optimum attention span. The fact of the matter is that - like the proper sciences - there will be many dead ends, perhaps more because of the inherent uniqueness of every 'system' (read: person) to enter the frame of research. Just like in the core sciences having a negative result is not bad or undesirable - it informs future research and closes current avenues... and it is the reason why science in general should be free from capitalistic corporate meddling. There will never be a perfect research project and there will never be an ultimate answer for anything - just the best we can approximate for the time being with the current knowledge.

As to how the scientific community communicates with the outside world... i've resigned myself to thinking that it is impossible. Get any person who's been in a job for 20-40 years and have them explain it - in an in-depth manner - to a layperson outside of their field. Even if it's a librarian there will be so many basic, low-level assumptions that would have to be thought about and explained the amount of effort would not be worth the eventual benefit - per person.... not to mention that people who aren't interested wouldn't hang around to listen.
There are many initiatives that simplify these concepts and problems for the public and these are very successful at generating interest and a conversation with the general populace with regards to understanding science and yet there is still fear and misunderstanding about science in general... OMG! They're going to create a black hole with the LHC! (or something to that effect).... and yet, ironically, we're so dependent on scientific applications in our daily lives that, if they were lost or disabled for more than a few hours many lives might be lost in that time frame.... and there may be riots (which i find confusing but have seen happen in similar situations).

It's a long, hard and thankless task being any sort of scientist - especially those health and safety guys - and to be honest, at least where i'm from, there isn't much money in it either.

Sorry for the long and rambling post.

The schism between academia and the general population is a function of the training to enter academia.
Through those years your paradigm falls into line with the school or academic society in which you have brought up.
This creates a distinct difference in lenses through which events are viewed, making communication between academics and non-academics increasingly difficult.
(This comment borrows heavily on Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", a book which you should all read)

Well, that's part of the problem right there. The first year of the PhD seems to drive everyone into near- (or actual) depression. At the very least, drinking levels skyrocket. Though mine haven't come down by year 3...

I can sympathise with the disillusionment you felt about the disconnect between academia and the public. I stopped worrying about it when I realised that I didn't need to feel that my work would change the world, and that I was quite satisfied with the simple problem-solving aspect. I can see why a lot of people wouuldn't share this view, though.

The pay in academia will almost always be low, given the amount of training and experience required. There's no reason to stay unless you genuinely love either the work conditions or what you're doing. The trick now is working out what you will find fulfilling!

Edit: Don't forget to read PHD comics, just to remind yourself how mad you have to be to be a PhD student...

Could be worse, Zoid - you could end up in Academic Management like me. Now I'm running round all day trying to keep academics happy by ensuring that they do the things they are supposed to, like wiping their ar*es, taking care of the few students they kindly deign to tutor and patiently explaining that their workloads are calculated on the students that they actually recruit, not the ones they predicted in May.

It's like herding cats. And now it's August, and the place would make a suitable setting for a Western ghost town....except it's in England. And in a city.

Anyways, good luck Zoidberg, I'm sure that you'll discover something you really do want to do.

Remember, you're only seeing one side of the story. On the other you've got under-paid, over-worked due to lack of school (university school) funding and thus staff positions (e.g. no technicians or helpers - unless you're medicine ) and that's even before we get onto the supervising of postgraduate projects that they have to get funding for and also applying for various grants to keep their research alive. The last time my supervisor had any time for lab work was when he was a PhD student and the only lecturer that i know of that does some of his own lab work for projects he is interested in comes in on the weekend/after 6pm and doesn't have any kids or family to please. Of course, that's only how it is in my own department. Not sure about other kinds of academic institutions.

Holy sh*t! Never before has something captured an aspect of my life so completely!

There are a number of programs (often associated with English departments) devoted to teaching experts (in any field, academic or not) how to avoid jargon and obtuse writing. The Little Red Schoolhouse folks at UChicago seemed to pull in some fairly fat cash giving seminars and workshops for corporations, labs, law firms, federal judges, and other institutions of higher abstraction.

You should write Phil Collins and ask for him to share his wisdom.

Thanks for the comic link. Never heard of that strip before... and man, he's been doing it for 11 years.

I currently have a BA (plus a handful of grad credits), and I really love learning and going to school... it surely beats the alternatives in many ways. Even though my current pay is directly tied to academic credits, I really have no desire to get a masters, much less a doctorate in education.

I think the biggest problem with "academia" is simply that people see it as an END, rather than a means to an end. Look at what job you want... look at the requirements you need to do that job. IF you can do it with a BA, cool. If you need an MA, then get one... same thing with a PhD. If you're in school, though, just because you don't want to get "a real job," you're doing it wrong.

And even then, you're often looking at 20-30+ years (at least in my field) between doing your research and it actually getting developed to the point where it can be used in the real world.

Of course there's also the possibility that you may be doing something you really like and are interested in and would not be able to do outside of academia. In which case it is an end as much as any other job is. You may still want to move on to another job afterwards of course but this isn't unusual for any job in any industry these days and people who have done a PhD or MA/MSci/etc shouldn't be deterred from choosing to change their career path more than anyone else who switches.

It's all about positioning?