Lonelygirl15

impulse wrote:

Libra wrote: Research Scientists are people with Ph.D's and years of experience. You can't have that by 22.

I concur.

hockeygurl wrote:

cbizzle44 wrote:if I were a super secret scientist, i would DEFINATELY put it on my youtube profile.
no question.

lol!

iamcool wrote:

hockeygurl wrote:

cbizzle44 wrote:if I were a super secret scientist, i would DEFINATELY put it on my youtube profile.
no question.

lol!

lmao!! yeah its canon, its kinda like doing this

Skunkwaffle wrote:with Neutrogena as I understand it.

Libra wrote:Doogie Howsier was a character.

I complained because I know that in reality you can't be a scientist at the age of 22. It takes a lot of work and many years of research. Many.

I was kinda hoping for an older character scientist type. Not some "genius" who had connections or whatever and is now a "scientist" at Neutrogena.

sack36 wrote:
I don't know why it's so hard to think 22 for scientist. One of my nephews was hired as a programmer for Nortons at age 16; and another at 18. My father was accepted at Notre Dame at 15. My uncle got his PHD in physics at 25 and none of these were considered particularly astounding phenomena in my family. 22 is a bit young for research scientist, but not overly so, and they'd want him young enough to fit well with the group.

Libra Wrote:

It's hard because I am 22. And I did research. I've tried to apply for jobs in research, and the people hiring want YEARS of experience, not someone young who will "fit in well with the group".

At least in biology, Research Scientists are people with Ph.D's and years of experience. You can't have that by 22.

I've heard of programmers being hired young. But not scientists.

ArgenteumAstrum wrote:
duh. doogie howsier was a character. this..is..a..show. *which also contains characters* and, in reality...THIS WOULDN'T BE HAPPENING.

Libra wrote:

sack36 wrote:I don't know why it's so hard to think 22 for scientist. One of my nephews was hired as a programmer for Nortons at age 16; and another at 18. My father was accepted at Notre Dame at 15. My uncle got his PHD in physics at 25 and none of these were considered particularly astounding phenomena in my family. 22 is a bit young for research scientist, but not overly so, and they'd want him young enough to fit well with the group.

It's hard because I am 22. And I did research. I've tried to apply for jobs in research, and the people hiring want YEARS of experience, not someone young who will "fit in well with the group".
At least in biology, Research Scientists are people with Ph.D's and years of experience. You can't have that by 22.
I've heard of programmers being hired young. But not scientists.

flychiqk wrote:

Really guys its not that difficult. It is possible to have a Ph.D at 22. think about it. If you graduate highscool at 14 or 15 it can definitely be done. There are many people all over the world who are accomplishing degrees at very young ages. PhD's do not take a million years to accomplish and if the person is intelligent, naturally scientifically minded, and has good guidance from teachers and professors anything is possible.

haha...thanks..that's what I was trying to say!

sack36 wrote:

Libra wrote:

sack36 wrote:I don't know why it's so hard to think 22 for scientist. One of my nephews was hired as a programmer for Nortons at age 16; and another at 18. My father was accepted at Notre Dame at 15. My uncle got his PHD in physics at 25 and none of these were considered particularly astounding phenomena in my family. 22 is a bit young for research scientist, but not overly so, and they'd want him young enough to fit well with the group.

It's hard because I am 22. And I did research. I've tried to apply for jobs in research, and the people hiring want YEARS of experience, not someone young who will "fit in well with the group".
At least in biology, Research Scientists are people with Ph.D's and years of experience. You can't have that by 22.
I've heard of programmers being hired young. But not scientists.

If you'd read the entire post, you would see that several of my relatives are scientists that got into research by an early age (27 was the youngest) and were not considered overly spectacular achievers. 22 is possible. Just not usual.

flychiqk wrote:I would also like to add that there are many researchers who make HUGE contributions to their field even in their undergraduate years.

It could be that this Mr. Gilman was in the process of researching something and his experimental results were highly regarded in his scientific field or that they were novel or controvesial....That can put anyone on the fast track...Ive seen it happen with students at my campus.

cbizzle44 wrote:if I were a super secret scientist, i would DEFINATELY put it on my youtube profile.
no question.

but i tried to find something on how neutrogena is working on anti-aging. all i found was jennifer garner and "vitamin A is really good for your skin!"... so not much at all.
here's what i'm thinking- our super secret scientist was working as something not that important at the wyman foundation, but learned a lot (because really, 22?). so then he went to neutrogena and said "i know all this stuff about anti-aging. hire me!"
plausible? perhaps......