You must log in or register to comment.
Oof.
Just master’s out and tapdance away from that nonsense.
Join us in the work force with options like: (a) high salary but 50+ hr weeks and you’ll either thrive or want to kill yourself in 2 years, or (b) pennies and prestigious temp jobs because they literally can’t make permanent positions because their budget is not under their control, or © run your own business like everyone else in a saturated market for a niche job! Make sure you are prepared for liability and the possibility of getting sued.
It’s fun…out here…in not-academia.
I wanted to go into forensic psychology. But then I took a class on Tuesday nights taught by someone whose day-job was forensic psychology and found out how often you’re likely to get sued just by doing your job (assisting the courts means the losing side will often be pissed at and litigious with you).
I graduated with my BS in Psychology and promptly accepted an IT job - I have a natural talent with tech and had work experience from my student job as a helpdesk tech for the college. Now I work nights from home doing core network maintenance for an ISP.
Still trying to figure out if the student loan debt I’m currently buried under was really worth taking on just to get my foot in the door of barely-lucrative employment.
EDIT: If your career interest can be entered into with trade school or studying for and testing for a few certs, college is a waste of money! Don’t do it!
Why the fuck is it legal to sue someone because they assisted the courts? I feel like they should have legal protection unless they massively fucked up
I guess that’s what the people who are suing are alleging. Like if we imagine they did severely fuck up, and it led to a defendant losing the case, then suing is probably the only way you’d be able to get formal acknowledgement of that fuck up.
I think it sucks from that angle too, because as someone who has had to litigate against an organisation, it really sucks to have to do, especially when you know you’re in the right.
There’s the opposite when there’s too much protection: defendant provides an independent expert’s opinion, court provides state approved expert of questionable ethics and professional qualifications but with a correct opinion, i.e. the one that supports the prosecution. And guess who the court will listen to, and that state provided expert is untouchable and has no reason to actually do a good job.
Yeah that’s true. I’ve honestly got no idea for a balance between the two or if there even should be any changes made
Which is already happening.
This is so accurate it hurts. This also goes for review comments on papers.
I feel like it’s true for comments anywhere on the internet.
I opt for Commenter #2, have you tried painting instead?
Damn. You just reminded me of the comments I received on my first paper. They said it was the most uninteresting work they had ever seen and added nothing to the last 4 decades of research on the subject.
I still cringe when I remember it 😭😭
Reminds me of a recorded anthropology talk I saw about why humans are the only hominid out there now, and how strange that is. At the end, there was a open question segment, and the first fucking question was “How does this relate to race?”
Oh, that dude wants to start a purge
The prof literally responded with “I’d rather not.”
This also applies to feedback on video games
After the candidate leaves the room: "okay so we don’t know their advisor and they’re not from a prestigious program so that’s an automatic no, right? Glad we could get the token plebian out of the way so we can look at the serious candidates. Sorry, Wendy, I know you planned on collaborating with them and said some things about “good work” but we’ve gotta keep our ability to attract talent.
