拼进 top 大学并不会让你成为更好的科学家（起码物理学是） - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>Biology - 生物学

拼进 top 大学并不会让你成为更好的科学家（起码物理学是）

拼进 top 大学并不会让你成为更好的科学家（起码物理学是）# Biology - 生物学

s*e2014-06-22 07:06

1 楼

TSC的OPT申请最近似乎比较慢，个人感觉。
我received date 3.24，今天6.16拿到，总共也85天左右了。真的非常慢。中间经过几
次加急。
5.19左右fax加急，没有任何回音。
5.22 mail加急，收到回复，完全驴头不对马嘴，告诉我地址应我的要求被改了，改成
offer letter中出现的地址。。。
6.6电话加急，客服1告诉我5天内给我回复，没有任何回复。
6.12打电话，客服2告诉我，等着吧，30天有回复。挂了电话觉得不对，重新打过去，
换了另一个人客服3，查询，说系统没有查到任何加急请求。我就一下怒了（当时一下
子说话很快，而且很不满），说怎么可以这样，明明给我一个tracking number，然后
白等5天，告诉我没有提交信息。并且我都等了80天了，啥消息都没有，网上也不更新
。这个客服很不错，就说那就再提交一个加急请求，同时说因为时间很久，她要再提交
一个approaching regulatory time frame request，差不多的名字。我问这个是干什
么的，她说这个说明时间快到90天了，要立刻给答复说明怎么回事。
6.13觉得不放心，继续打USCIS电话，我问是否有加急请求，对方回答说有，我说为什
么没有答复？她说答复已经用mail寄出来了。。我当时觉得太夸张了，这我得啥时候知
道啊。她说不过她可以看到答复内容，我立刻要求查看一下，然后告知我内容是
document已经寄出来了。我就按版上指导要求tracking number，很顺利拿到了number
，信是priority mail。
今天6.16正式拿到opt的卡。我申请的开始时间是6.1，被改成了6.10号。
几个感觉：1.uscis服务真不咋地。不要提交request就完了，一定要follow。从我的经
验看，传真完全没人理，平信肯定也没人看，随便贴了个address update的notice给我
，结果系统地址也根本没有改过。如果你要通知换地址。。更要谨慎。如果只是搬家，
可以到usps办一个address change啊，很好用。
2.USCIS电话客服有人水平不高（客服1,2），而且很自信，很容易误导人。如果1个人
回答你不满意，就挂断立刻换一个人。不要就算了，被人误导。
3.时间快到90天了，要额外告诉他们，客服3就表示这个approaching regulatory time
frame request会有帮助。

G*h2014-06-22 07:06

2 楼

一篇挺有意思的调查报告的报告（The Economist）：
标题：“Why climb the greasy pole? ”
副标题：“Getting a job at a top university will not make you a better
researcher”
结论：“The upshot is that elite universities do not, at least as far as
physicists are concerned, add value to output”.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21601811-g
May 10th 2014 | From the print edition
MOST academics would view a post at an elite university like Oxford or
Harvard as the crowning achievement of a career—bringing both accolades and
access to better wine cellars. But scholars covet such places for reasons
beyond glory and gastronomy. They believe perching on one of the topmost
branches of the academic tree will also improve the quality of their work,
by bringing them together with other geniuses with whom they can collaborate
and who may help spark new ideas. This sounds plausible. Unfortunately, as
Albert-Laszlo Barabasi of Northeastern University, in Boston (and also, it
must be said, of Harvard), shows in a study published in Scientific Reports,
it is not true.
Dr Barabasi and his team examined the careers of physicists who began
publishing between 1950 and 1980 and continued to do so for at least 20
years. They ranked the impact of the institutions these people attended by
counting the number of citations each institution’s papers received within
five years of publication. By tracking the affiliations of individual
physicists and counting their citations in a similar way, Dr Barabasi was
able to work out whether moving from a low- to a high-ranking university
improved a physicist’s impact. In total, he and his team analysed 2,725
careers.
They found that, though an average physicist moved once or twice during his
career, moving from a low-rank university to an elite one did not increase
his scientific impact. Going in the opposite direction, however, did have a
small negative influence.
The upshot is that elite universities do not, at least as far as physicists
are concerned, add value to output. That surprising conclusion is one which
the authorities in countries such as Britain, who are seeking to concentrate
expensive subjects such as physics in fewer, more elite institutions—
partly to save money, but also to create what are seen as centres of
excellence—might wish to consider.
From the print edition: Science and technology