Not sure what world you're in, but 97K starting is pretty good if you just came out of a post doc
Get the job you really want - Zippia
www.zippia.com
cheers
New F&W job opening
- Thread starter Paul_
- Start date
www.zippia.com
cheers
Do you think this should just be done on an ad hoc, informal basis with no backing data or stats or anything? Because that sounds like it would be their “feelings.” And then, managers are supposed to take their feelings about the public’s feelings to the legislature along with their work plan and budget request? And when folks shout for accountability, they will say, But Mr. Allen said we don’t need science to know this stuff, we are just supposed to know it and everyone will trust we got it right.
It's a wage range. 62-97...so just go ahead and assume it's going to be 97 so it fits your view.
I think you may need to get out more, as 50 bucks an hour ain't what it used to be.
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
We have been studying these issues for many decades. WDFW has decades worth of public meetings and public input. We do not need any more information we don't need any more science. We need action and they already know the actions that need to be taken. They refuse to take those actions and or are prevented from taking those actions because of politics which is the will of the people if it wasn't the politics would change.
In terms of Ad hoc. We could take 15 members of this forum and do a better job of managing fish and wildlife. Than the agency's management has. So. Yes ad hoc all the way. On top of that. We'd take responsibility for our failures..
Now I'll add a disclaimer. WDFW has some awesome people. Their top steelhead researcher is the best my beef is with management only. WDFW. Already knows how the public feels about conservation.
Last edited:
You have pointed out one of the “vicious cycles” that thwart meaningful, positive changes, yet you argue against interventions to break the cycle. Sounds like a frustrating way to go through life.
Fisheries science and social sciences are moving targets. Pretending that they are static and that all the information that is needed is already known and that no new information will ever be relevant would be foolish.
And how is that?
cody-
Steelhead
"Nothing is working... No! Don't try something new." "This position is meaningless! It should have a much higher salary."
I feel bad for whoever eventually fills this position and has to speak with some of y'all. On the other hand, I'm sure the competitive salary for a social science grad working in government and great benefits will provide plenty of solace.
I feel bad for whoever eventually fills this position and has to speak with some of y'all. On the other hand, I'm sure the competitive salary for a social science grad working in government and great benefits will provide plenty of solace.
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
I disagree that social science is changing.. politics influencing society has changed. The actual science has not. But that's an aside.
I'd argue that even if fisheries science has changed WDFW still hasn't dealt with the science from a decades ago. What is the point of learning more if you haven't acted on what you learned 10 years ago?
We've been telling them for decades..
Because the stuff from 10 years ago may no longer be relevant, or the limiting factor, or…
Honestly, I’d like to hear.
You do seem like a good candidate. Love the passion. It could get you back to Washington maybe.
I don’t think they’ll be bored!
So which is it? The funds should go to science tech positions, or we don't need any more science?
cody-
Steelhead
The "we" in this statement is not a singular entity with singular opinions. If it were, then their wouldn't be disagreements in this very thread.
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
Scientific techs keep tabs on things and actually do something. That information is good do have and is ignored by managers. The information is good but it doesn't accomplish anything without action from the department.
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
That's true but we don't need a 90000 dollar scientist to tell us that.
I guess I should have figured wages are subjective. I was making the statement because I thought the position was for western Washington Olympia/Tacoma area. No, I don't think that is a good wage for someone with 5-8 years of college debt. If you want to attract high-caliber individuals you have to pay for them. I understand people do it because they love it. However, I want people that are excellent at these positions, not just people that love the gig.Not sure what world you're in, but 97K starting is pretty good if you just came out of a post doc
View attachment 4181
Get the job you really want - Zippia
cheers
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
I don't disagree with that in relation to student debt. I think that's more a reflection of the cost and value of the education than it is a reflection on the wage.. the cost of an education doesn't reflect the value of that education and the cost of an education does not set the wages for the job that requires that education.
cody-
Steelhead
It's competitive with everything I've seen applying for postdoc positions nationwide over the last few months, and I'm coming from and engineering background rather than soft sciences. Not everything pays like a tech start-up, but there's plenty to be said about doing what you love.
Sure, I don't disagree with that. That doesn't change the fact the government is rife with mediocre people because private companies pay substantially more and get the cream of the crop.
I don’t know anything about social science training and the funding of that training. In the natural resources science world, professors often fund their grad students through research assistantships and teaching opportunities. I have been lucky enough to be free of student loans because of those kinds of opportunities. Without those, I wouldn’t be working in the field!
I think I will stay out of this back n forth debate, point-counterpoint but this short sentence says a lot to me. The last six years of my working career I worked on a few ad hoc committees - oh my, how the science changed in those six years. Of course, politics between agencies never happened, funding was always present in a bottomless pit, everyone always agreed with everyone, infighting never happened. Happy, Happy Joy, Joy.
I agree that these "sciences" are moving targets, if ever there was a BGO (blinding glimpse of the obvious) - those targets, those "definitions" moved constantly.