'Qualified' Astrophysicist!

In message , Fleetie
writes
wrote
so I was informed correctly. Starting a PhD and then being 'invited to
leave' after a year does not make one a qualified astrophysicist or a
former professional astronomer, and I note there are no research papers
in evidence. I still say this is deliberately misleading to a radio 4
audience.

What's your beef, dude?

You need to decide, and define, what you mean by the word "qualified".
Otherwise you're just punching air.

Anyway, not that it's much relevant to the original question, but I remember#
when I was a young-ish kid (maybe 10 or 11 or something) enjoying a series
she co-presented with some Irish astronomer called Terence Murtagh. (I've seen
brief clips of him on astronomy progs much more recently than that, too.)
That was the first time I remember seeing her on TV. I guess that would have
been about 1982 or 1983 or soemthing, but I am guessing. The show might have
been called "Heavens Above", but again, it was a long time ago, so I'm not
sure.

Google throws up several hits for a book with that title, so it sounds
right.
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

May I add a few points. What are some of you talking about? John Ruddy
states a tautology in that it is normal for someone to say they are
qualified when they have achieved a qualification!! Ian Sharp says Miss
Couper has excellent formal qualifications. Nonesense to both counts.

A degree is a qualification certainly, of course it it, but is is not a
qualification to be an astrophysicist. Saying you are a qualified
astrophysist means you could get a job as an astrophysicist and
frankly, you can't with just a degree, it is an insufficient and
inadequate qualification. Apply for a job as an astrophysicist or an
astronomer with just a degree and you won't even get an interview
because you are ***inadequately qualified***. You are not an
astrophysicist after a first degree any more than an O level in
woodwork means you are a qualified carpenter, to think otherwise in
demeaning to the professional astronomers. Miss Couper has, as far as I
am aware, only earned a degree, repeat, only a degree, and that is not
'excellent formal qualifications' in anyones book, frankly it's pretty
average.

I did not know much about Miss Couper when I made my first post but in
the space of just a few days since I have had over 25 private emails
about her to me, some from media types much to my suprise. One of them
says she is inaccurate and doesn't really know her stuff and always
strays from the point in an interview to drop names or say how
wonderful or well qualified she is, he said she was the worst 'expert'
he had ever come across. Others said the same. Listening to the radio 4
interview last week i can now see that point. I wish I had recorded her
interview on Broadcasting House after the Columbia accident but I was
not really into astronomy then.

Someone sent me a text of a Sunday Telegraph profile of her in 1993 -
not very flattering - it said that the reason why she has not been on
the Sky at Night for 20 years or so is that Patrick Moore cannot stand
her and will not attend any event she is present at! is this so?

Rev Byrne has a good point. I think Patrick Moore loves astronomy more
than himself, Miss Couper loves herself more than astronomy.

"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message
...
I have a degree in Physics with Astrophysics from the University of
Leicester and I would like to think that I'm qualified in the subject

To what degree are you qualified?

;-)

This is a funny thread.

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

To reply, remove Delete and change period com to period net
************************************************** ************

Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Recent images http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/recent/recent_images.html
** Last update June 24 2005 **

wrote in message
oups.com...
But that does not make her a 'qualified' astrophysicist. I repeat, has
she ever worked as a professional astronomer or astrophysicist, as she
states.


Define what you mean by qualified and maybe the question could be answered.

If she is a member (or is it "fellow"?) of the Institute of Physics, then
she is "by definition" a qualified physicist, because that is a condition of
joining and the Institute would have to confirm those qualifications. Many
astronomers are members. The basic qualification is to have a valid degree
and to be an active professional in some aspect of physics (including
astronomy), which could include either being a researcher or a professional
author of educational popular books and a producer of science films.

So by extension, having a degree in astronomy and physics and being active
in the education field through writing, television, and films, she is
technically "qualified". Heather is not an active researcher in astronomy
or astrophysics.

There is no equivalent organisation in astronomy, the Royal Astronomical
Society being the closest, and she is a Fellow of very long standing in that
society, and a member of the International Astronomical Union (which does
require being an active professional in research or education, so maybe that
counts as being "qualified", at least int he eyes of the world's
astronomical community).

So I'm not sure what your point is. Presumably the statement was in reply
to a direct question?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

wrote in message
oups.com...
I am fairly new to astronomy.

I heard Heather Cooper on the radio the other day talking about the
space shuttle, or rather not talking about the space shuttle, most of
what she said was about herself!

However one thing puzzled me. She said she was a 'qualified
astrophysicist.' Is this so? What qulifications?

She also said that the space shuttle safety systems were 'shocking.'
Sounds a bit extreme to me.


Heather's qualifications aside, I think I would have to agree about the
space shuttle. Any vehicle intended for manned spaceflight that has a 100%
fatal malfunction involving complete destruction of the spacecraft about
once in every 50 flights is indeed pretty shocking. Spaceflight remains an
inherently dangerous activity, but if the US Congress has been less intent
on every state getting a piece of the action and more intent on producing a
reliable reusable US spacecraft, things could have been a lot different.

Read Feynman's article on the subject.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

wrote in news:1121563697.616838.102290
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


Rev Byrne has a good point. I think Patrick Moore loves astronomy more
than himself, Miss Couper loves herself more than astronomy.

That's about the one thing in this thread I understand, and I have to say,
purely on the strength of her broadcasts, I agree with it

mike

wrote in message
oups.com...
I am fairly new to astronomy.

I heard Heather Cooper on the radio the other day talking about the
space shuttle, or rather not talking about the space shuttle, most of
what she said was about herself!

However one thing puzzled me. She said she was a 'qualified
astrophysicist.' Is this so? What qulifications?

She also said that the space shuttle safety systems were 'shocking.'
Sounds a bit extreme to me.


She's probably more qualified then many others you'll get giving their
opinions.

On the TV, including the news, these days we get all sorts of so-called
experts on everything.
How do you get a qualification in 'security expert' or 'science
correspondent' for example?.

Relax and take the TV and news with with a 'pinch of salt', as they say, and
look for further information if you want the real/true facts.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I am fairly new to astronomy.

I heard Heather Cooper on the radio the other day talking about the
space shuttle, or rather not talking about the space shuttle, most of
what she said was about herself!

However one thing puzzled me. She said she was a 'qualified
astrophysicist.' Is this so? What qulifications?

She also said that the space shuttle safety systems were 'shocking.'
Sounds a bit extreme to me.


She's probably more qualified then many others you'll get giving their
opinions.

On the TV, including the news, these days we get all sorts of so-called
experts on everything.
How do you get a qualification in 'security expert' or 'science
correspondent' for example?.

Relax and take the TV and news with with a 'pinch of salt', as they say, and
look for further information if you want the real/true facts.

writes

Someone sent me a text of a Sunday Telegraph profile of her in 1993 -
not very flattering - it said that the reason why she has not been on
the Sky at Night for 20 years or so is that Patrick Moore cannot stand
her and will not attend any event she is present at! is this so?

Rev Byrne has a good point. I think Patrick Moore loves astronomy more
than himself, Miss Couper loves herself more than astronomy.

I've never been able to stand more than a few seconds of Couper's
candy-floss wittering. There are surely more inquisitive, more
knowledgeable, better communicators around but clearly her name is at
the top of the BBC's "experts" list and that's what counts.

Not a patch on the big man.

--
Hil

wrote:
May I add a few points. What are some of you talking about? John Ruddy
states a tautology in that it is normal for someone to say they are
qualified when they have achieved a qualification!! Ian Sharp says Miss
Couper has excellent formal qualifications. Nonesense to both counts.


Hardly a tautology - its the definition of the word!

qualified,
adjective
having finished a training course, or having particular skills, etc

A degree is a qualification certainly, of course it it, but is is not a
qualification to be an astrophysicist. Saying you are a qualified
astrophysist means you could get a job as an astrophysicist and
frankly, you can't with just a degree, it is an insufficient and
inadequate qualification. Apply for a job as an astrophysicist or an
astronomer with just a degree and you won't even get an interview
because you are ***inadequately qualified***.

Depends on what level of job you are applying for, surely. Apply for a
job as head of the entire institute with just an undergraduate degree
and yes, you will get laughed out of there. Apply for a basic research
assistant type of job and you wont.

You are not an
astrophysicist after a first degree any more than an O level in
woodwork means you are a qualified carpenter, to think otherwise in
demeaning to the professional astronomers. Miss Couper has, as far as I
am aware, only earned a degree, repeat, only a degree, and that is not
'excellent formal qualifications' in anyones book, frankly it's pretty
average.