a Grand Scheme for systematics?

[Doug Yanega]

>O.K., I've seen this mentioned several times in the last year and I have
>yet to believe it.  Just what data is there to suggest that the number of
>systematists is shrinking?   Any systematics related position in botany
>will garner at least 100 applicants.  Can anyone really think that such a
>cut-throat job market is reflective of a declining base of qualified
>applicants?  From the time I first expressed interest in systematics I
>was told that finding a job in the field would be a miracle.  The critics
>were right.

That was precisely the point! There aren't enough positions to employ all
of the people *trained* to be systematists - the number of positions is
what matters, since training is useless if you can't do the work, train new
students, etc.

>I would suggest that we have more than enough systematists to go around.
>The major problem is that the number of funded positions is declining.

Then we essentially agree, and you've answered your own question. If I'd
said "full-time systematists" this confusion wouldn't have arisen. Mea
culpa.

>I always thought there was something wrong with a
>system that requires a doctorate to work for half a decade or more for
>salaries that often are below $20,000 per year.

You're not alone in that opinion. Another reason we need better sources of
funding.

Doug Yanega       Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Dr.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA      phone (217) 244-6817, fax (217) 333-4949
 affiliate, Univ. of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Dept. of Entomology
          http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu:80/~dyanega/my_home.html
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82