Job offered informally confirmed.
H O W E V E R
The UK austerity turns out to be a kind of protectionism. More restrictions on immigration of non-EU citizens means it becomes much more difficult to get a work visa.
The HR department is not going to give me a formal offer until completion of my PhD degree. It seems the CEO does not want to approve my appointment. And even they approve, there is no guarantee since all ultimately depend on the UK border agency. They may doubt that the salary offered is too low, the job ad was posted last August and should be re-advertised to make no British or EU citizen can get it, or I may fail the exam.
I try to speed up the writing up. But at the same time, I am looking for other jobs - especially non-UK jobs.
I am good enough to get a permanent contract equivalent to lecturership right after PhD. Good reference letters, good network, eight first/sole-authored ISI journal publications (comparing to the average 2-3), highly relevant expertise. So what?
After all, passport is the final exam - Do you have a British/EU passport?
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Some thoughts about science
my response to a thread in discussion.com:
1)
My epiphany came when I realized that the neoclassical economists manipulate various kind of data trying to fit everything under a math model even this does not make sense or is not appropriate. Then I found that SOME experimental and behavioural economists have joined these economists in manipulating people's value expressions and in effect data and theories under the banner of rationalization. Technical expertise clearly provides a better tool for manipulation of science than what philosophers and ethicists could offer. I can show you tonnes of scientific research papers supporting this enough for you to read for more than a year.
Not long ago I have a sole-authored journal paper accepted by an ISI journal concerning exactly about this issue. I attack some behavioural economists who employ decision theories to support public participation initiatives. They work for a private consultancy firm receiving money from governments and companies and therefore have vested interest.
Knowledge and science are a matter of power. Religions used to be the major manipulating force, but when science took over them, science can become that force, especially when combined with commercial interest (e.g. mining companies & geologists). As a voter, what would you think if decision scientists or economists attempt to 'educate' your preference toward a what they called a 'rational' mode? Such UNCHECKED application of science supported by math that most people cannot understand is what I condemn.
All I said here mainly apply to public policy especially environmental policy and values research. And don't take me as a sociologist or philosopher. I am a heterodox political economist although I don't want to be an 'economist'.
2)
That's just you and many others like you. And I believe most scientists are honest. The reality is many are tempted to do research in that way as their job prospect / income is closely linked to the ability of their employer or sponsor to fool the public. When you become a key part of an organization whose survival depends on some form of manipulation, you are expected to contribute to it in one way or another. And don't forget some of these organizations are in fact led by scientists themselves. Same for economists, who are obsessed to the identity of 'scientists'. The World Bank is home to many academic economists. They have an agenda to expand liberal-capitalism across the less developed world and this is supported by vested interest. This is far from neutral once your appointment is meant to contribute to that agenda. (things may be less complicated in universities)
One of my supervisors has sufferred from an attempted manipulation. He as an economist had a journal article accepted criticizing the government's emission trading policy in favour of carbon tax. The scientific organization he worked for is a national research agency. It is part of the government in favour of emission trading, and is headed by an ex-executive of a big mining company (mining industry has huge vested interest in the policy). They threatened to ban the article for a bullshit reason: government scientists are not expected to make comment on policy (so what's the point to hire the political economist?). They want to make their organization and employees like a group of 'neutral' scientists. Precisely by banning the paper from publication, they are not neutral anymore. So the logic is, you work for the government and the organization being funded by the resource industry, you are not expected do anything not in their interest. Or, you resign, and he did.
It's hard to remain neutral when those who pay you salary have every incentive to do the opposite. I am not sure people are neutral when they consciously know their guns under production are going to be used by someone else for killing people (what else can guns be used for!?).
3)
This is a matter of power. The Nobel econ prize does have values behind and is defintely not neutral. When did Friedman and Hayek got the prize? When did Cold war take place? The western world controls most of the world's power and resources. They have the ability to define what good science is.
No less true in natural science. A few climate scientists were too gagged by the same organization my super used to work for (finally one or two resigned). So what climat science is? the one not clearly against the organization's interest.
Scientists and economists work in their sponsor's interest far more often than in public interest (less in universites, more in governments and private sector). The lay people don't pay for research directy. Powerful organizations can and do.
4)
[one guy said: there is also a distinction between using research to JUSTIFY a position, versus applying research just for selfish gains.] I replied: Such a distinction may exist technically. The paradox is: who is going to draw the line? You may say the scientists themselves CAN. So the scientists who could potentially make selfish gains from research are at the same time the ones to judge whether or not they could separate the two. They have an incentive to justify the distinction and deny of themselves engaging in the second one. There is then a good reason to hold suspicion of the arguments they attempt to make.
Ulrich Beck's seminal monograph 'Risk Society' has made a point: science since the 2nd half of 20th Century has been given a different set of problems to solve. That is, those that are in part created by scientific advance itself, such as risks from GM food, nuclear, ozone depletion, global warming. The modernization created by science is reflexive: science is both the cause of the problems and source of solutions to these problems. The usual internal scrutiny process is then no longer sufficient, as the scientific communities who are charged to provide solutions have every incentive to deny of their contribution to the problems they are asked to solve (or if they couldn't, deny or shift responsibility). There is potential conflict of interest. Scrutiny from non-scientific communities then becomes more reasonable than ever. (unlike Charles Darwin against the Church, he didn't create the latter)
1)
My epiphany came when I realized that the neoclassical economists manipulate various kind of data trying to fit everything under a math model even this does not make sense or is not appropriate. Then I found that SOME experimental and behavioural economists have joined these economists in manipulating people's value expressions and in effect data and theories under the banner of rationalization. Technical expertise clearly provides a better tool for manipulation of science than what philosophers and ethicists could offer. I can show you tonnes of scientific research papers supporting this enough for you to read for more than a year.
Not long ago I have a sole-authored journal paper accepted by an ISI journal concerning exactly about this issue. I attack some behavioural economists who employ decision theories to support public participation initiatives. They work for a private consultancy firm receiving money from governments and companies and therefore have vested interest.
Knowledge and science are a matter of power. Religions used to be the major manipulating force, but when science took over them, science can become that force, especially when combined with commercial interest (e.g. mining companies & geologists). As a voter, what would you think if decision scientists or economists attempt to 'educate' your preference toward a what they called a 'rational' mode? Such UNCHECKED application of science supported by math that most people cannot understand is what I condemn.
All I said here mainly apply to public policy especially environmental policy and values research. And don't take me as a sociologist or philosopher. I am a heterodox political economist although I don't want to be an 'economist'.
2)
That's just you and many others like you. And I believe most scientists are honest. The reality is many are tempted to do research in that way as their job prospect / income is closely linked to the ability of their employer or sponsor to fool the public. When you become a key part of an organization whose survival depends on some form of manipulation, you are expected to contribute to it in one way or another. And don't forget some of these organizations are in fact led by scientists themselves. Same for economists, who are obsessed to the identity of 'scientists'. The World Bank is home to many academic economists. They have an agenda to expand liberal-capitalism across the less developed world and this is supported by vested interest. This is far from neutral once your appointment is meant to contribute to that agenda. (things may be less complicated in universities)
One of my supervisors has sufferred from an attempted manipulation. He as an economist had a journal article accepted criticizing the government's emission trading policy in favour of carbon tax. The scientific organization he worked for is a national research agency. It is part of the government in favour of emission trading, and is headed by an ex-executive of a big mining company (mining industry has huge vested interest in the policy). They threatened to ban the article for a bullshit reason: government scientists are not expected to make comment on policy (so what's the point to hire the political economist?). They want to make their organization and employees like a group of 'neutral' scientists. Precisely by banning the paper from publication, they are not neutral anymore. So the logic is, you work for the government and the organization being funded by the resource industry, you are not expected do anything not in their interest. Or, you resign, and he did.
It's hard to remain neutral when those who pay you salary have every incentive to do the opposite. I am not sure people are neutral when they consciously know their guns under production are going to be used by someone else for killing people (what else can guns be used for!?).
3)
This is a matter of power. The Nobel econ prize does have values behind and is defintely not neutral. When did Friedman and Hayek got the prize? When did Cold war take place? The western world controls most of the world's power and resources. They have the ability to define what good science is.
No less true in natural science. A few climate scientists were too gagged by the same organization my super used to work for (finally one or two resigned). So what climat science is? the one not clearly against the organization's interest.
Scientists and economists work in their sponsor's interest far more often than in public interest (less in universites, more in governments and private sector). The lay people don't pay for research directy. Powerful organizations can and do.
4)
[one guy said: there is also a distinction between using research to JUSTIFY a position, versus applying research just for selfish gains.] I replied: Such a distinction may exist technically. The paradox is: who is going to draw the line? You may say the scientists themselves CAN. So the scientists who could potentially make selfish gains from research are at the same time the ones to judge whether or not they could separate the two. They have an incentive to justify the distinction and deny of themselves engaging in the second one. There is then a good reason to hold suspicion of the arguments they attempt to make.
Ulrich Beck's seminal monograph 'Risk Society' has made a point: science since the 2nd half of 20th Century has been given a different set of problems to solve. That is, those that are in part created by scientific advance itself, such as risks from GM food, nuclear, ozone depletion, global warming. The modernization created by science is reflexive: science is both the cause of the problems and source of solutions to these problems. The usual internal scrutiny process is then no longer sufficient, as the scientific communities who are charged to provide solutions have every incentive to deny of their contribution to the problems they are asked to solve (or if they couldn't, deny or shift responsibility). There is potential conflict of interest. Scrutiny from non-scientific communities then becomes more reasonable than ever. (unlike Charles Darwin against the Church, he didn't create the latter)
Sunday, March 27, 2011
我最喜愛的大陸劇
仙劍三電視劇插曲，現在的大陸劇比港劇好看多了，這套是我喜歡之一 (其實我也沒看過很多)。
喜歡的其中一個原因是情意結。雖然我沒有玩過仙劍，但大學時代迷上的是同類的古代神話風線上遊戲，叫 『軒轅劍』，台灣出品，瘋狂迷上的結果係學業倒退。現在的線上遊戲更吸引，我仍然很想再玩的，不過肯定會影響工作，所以嘛，想想好了，千萬別來認真的。
或者有些東西，懷念就好。
另一套我超喜歡的大陸劇是『人間四月天』，講述徐志摩的愛情故事，這是一部非常出色的電視劇，超出一般電視劇水準，很認真很有味道，所以即使我看了兩次，還是想再看。
也是有情意結的因素，一來我對民初文人的故事很有興趣，二來嘛，就是我大學時代的花名 - 志摩 (到現在也還是有人這樣叫我喔)
喜歡的其中一個原因是情意結。雖然我沒有玩過仙劍，但大學時代迷上的是同類的古代神話風線上遊戲，叫 『軒轅劍』，台灣出品，瘋狂迷上的結果係學業倒退。現在的線上遊戲更吸引，我仍然很想再玩的，不過肯定會影響工作，所以嘛，想想好了，千萬別來認真的。
或者有些東西，懷念就好。
另一套我超喜歡的大陸劇是『人間四月天』，講述徐志摩的愛情故事，這是一部非常出色的電視劇，超出一般電視劇水準，很認真很有味道，所以即使我看了兩次，還是想再看。
也是有情意結的因素，一來我對民初文人的故事很有興趣，二來嘛，就是我大學時代的花名 - 志摩 (到現在也還是有人這樣叫我喔)
Saturday, March 26, 2011
老闆2號
前陣子得知老闆2號John患上lymphoma， 有可能是cancer，還在檢查中。本來，生老病死從來都沒什麼可說的，但如果他有事，我想我會從心底的悲哭出來，原因不是僅僅出於我對他的崇拜，還有他是堪稱這個領域內數一數二的人物，失去了他，就如巨星殞落，是學術界的大損失。
我對他的崇拜不是盲目的，我看過很多他的著作，幾乎每次都有驚為天人的感覺，再感到自己跟他的距離實在太遠，他的創意、思想深度、寫作技巧及清晰的論證無一不叫人服膺。這三年裡，我的思想一直跟著他走，整套理論架構都是出自他的大架構，而我只不過在另一個稍為不同的領域裡發揚光大。
老闆1號Clive看過我的論文，他深知道我的思想來源，所以就說我的文章在attacking everybody ，但只有一個人我不會attack - John (我也沒有attack Clive)。事實上，我還想把John的其中一本著作翻譯作中文，我的中文水準比英文好多了，應該應付得來。
回想起來，如果當年我沒遇上Clive，就不會遇上 John，那麼我可能只會當個平凡學者，要突破也沒這麼快，理論基礎大概也沒那麼紮實。念PhD，最重要的真是找對老闆，即使不常見面，但光看他們的著作也有灌頂之效，更可況他們的曾先後在我困難或沮喪時候助我一把，作為一個博士生，我是相當幸運。
幾天前喜訊來了，他的lymphoma不是"a scary kind"，不用做化療。謝天謝地。
我對他的崇拜不是盲目的，我看過很多他的著作，幾乎每次都有驚為天人的感覺，再感到自己跟他的距離實在太遠，他的創意、思想深度、寫作技巧及清晰的論證無一不叫人服膺。這三年裡，我的思想一直跟著他走，整套理論架構都是出自他的大架構，而我只不過在另一個稍為不同的領域裡發揚光大。
老闆1號Clive看過我的論文，他深知道我的思想來源，所以就說我的文章在attacking everybody ，但只有一個人我不會attack - John (我也沒有attack Clive)。事實上，我還想把John的其中一本著作翻譯作中文，我的中文水準比英文好多了，應該應付得來。
回想起來，如果當年我沒遇上Clive，就不會遇上 John，那麼我可能只會當個平凡學者，要突破也沒這麼快，理論基礎大概也沒那麼紮實。念PhD，最重要的真是找對老闆，即使不常見面，但光看他們的著作也有灌頂之效，更可況他們的曾先後在我困難或沮喪時候助我一把，作為一個博士生，我是相當幸運。
幾天前喜訊來了，他的lymphoma不是"a scary kind"，不用做化療。謝天謝地。
Monday, March 21, 2011
Sleepless nights
Nearly a month in Vienna.
Sleepless nights over the last week. Why?
Not that difficult to understand why. One key reason is that my intellectual mind got inspired and excited by the conversations I had with supervisor. Every time we talked to each other or they gave me feedback on my works, or even I picked up their words from my recolllection, I couldn't stop thinking - more precisely couldn't turn off my intellectual machinery, no matter how tired I was or how hard I tried to close my eyes. So many ideas flowing around and so much I want to share, sometimes to an extent that I really try to talk to myself!
This means I am passionate, and this is the very character any successful academic must have.
I need to sleep. I need something to cool me down. I need a way out.
But who can stop me? Someone said: 'if you are good enough, no one can stop you'. Perhaps not even himself! The only one who can is perhaps his partner and family. I used to ..... ok, it's gone.
well... my head is big enough, please bring me to somewhere relaxing.
Sleepless nights over the last week. Why?
Not that difficult to understand why. One key reason is that my intellectual mind got inspired and excited by the conversations I had with supervisor. Every time we talked to each other or they gave me feedback on my works, or even I picked up their words from my recolllection, I couldn't stop thinking - more precisely couldn't turn off my intellectual machinery, no matter how tired I was or how hard I tried to close my eyes. So many ideas flowing around and so much I want to share, sometimes to an extent that I really try to talk to myself!
This means I am passionate, and this is the very character any successful academic must have.
I need to sleep. I need something to cool me down. I need a way out.
But who can stop me? Someone said: 'if you are good enough, no one can stop you'. Perhaps not even himself! The only one who can is perhaps his partner and family. I used to ..... ok, it's gone.
well... my head is big enough, please bring me to somewhere relaxing.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
From BBA to Geography & Politics：從鍊金學徒到學術推銷員
自從看過中大校長沈祖堯那篇論大學輕人文主義的文章後，就老是在想，如果當年中大開放日，我沒有被商學院那班衣著光鮮、顧盼自豪的學長們的『專業』形象所影響，也沒有被那本金碧輝煌的小冊子所吸引，大概會挑地理或政治學吧，畢竟我還是輾轉拜入其門下。馬戲團跟少林寺，前者門面華麗，技術主導，後者著重根基，思想為本。馬戲班主深諳市場學，那年在擦得油亮的『中大商學院』金漆招牌下，我跟著羊群一起被招攬了。
學跳火圈不用帶上靈魂
選科的動機，簡單得很，不外乎是就業前景，那年頭經濟不好，重『錢』途也無可厚非。甫入商學院大門，感覺像渡了金一樣，人人都幻想當CEO，最少也得當個什麼什麼師。商學研究不重視哲學基礎，故不入主流學術思想之門，也不會嘮叨什麼任重道遠，秉承經濟學傳統，只論事物的『價錢』而不涉『價值』，訓練職業技能為理所當然，也是眾望所歸。當然，高級一點的master課程，則不是職業訓練所，而是職場俱樂部，多得學員善長慷慨解囊，人間煙火多多益善，高級教授年薪百萬才有著落，這是一個黃金循環，學生成材(財?)，教授也多渡一層金，才有資格顧盼自豪，別忘了畢業生年薪也是課程排名的重要指標，莘莘學子既是金蛋又是母雞。
金蛋我可沒當成。沈校長說大學生缺乏靈魂，慚愧，undergrad年代的我確是一枚遊魂野鬼，少了七魄。商學院裡有一雙無形之手，先賢後進、教輔人員諄諄告誡學生作好職前準備，社稷民祉為重? 抱歉，『朝廷』很需要那五斗米，所以我們是『奉旨搵工』。書要唸，可那只是兼職，更重要的是去大公司當暑期工，找個有名氣的mentor，去exchange，考專業試，考big 4，那年代最好還懂得IT，還得巴結教授拿推薦信。不用像郭靖『為國為民』般腰板挺直，只要贏個青樓薄幸名就行，要會彈會唱會跳，琴棋書畫，CV弄個花團錦簇。師門曰：『你一定要學識踩鋼線、掟飛刀和跳火圈』『變魔術也得拿執照』，商學院食客三千，朱門裡外不是人，好像出了馬戲團就要當凍死骨, 不入大觀園就是阿土伯。校園比倒模廠好些，產品不是一式一樣，而是有ABC餐自行配搭多勞多得，所以有人一畢業就是鳳凰，有人三年後還是山雞，可憐的有些蛋殼也破不了。
真正的畢業證書不是一紙輕如鴻毛，而是硬哼哼的一個工具箱，這樣見工面試的時候才能擲地有聲。可恨我的還生了鏽，屢試不第，不過最後還能討個衙門小吏來當，謝主隆恩，不用當凍死骨。
由馬戲班到象牙塔
蘇東坡被貶才寫出經典詞作，不是那年頭的風暴可能我還是載浮載沉。要是當初在戲班裡歌舞昇平，也不會有出走的勇氣。事情總有個起承轉合，『起』純粹是自我覺悟，『承』則帶點贖罪意味，千金散盡唸個環境學碩士，從那時候開始找回了那七魄。
『轉』是遇上伯樂。作為芸芸眾生的一員，大學成績表上一副大眾面孔，庸庸碌碌平平無奇，冒昧地給大名鼎鼎的詹志勇教授發了個email，為什麼他會看得起我? 可能碩士成績好，也可能研究建議書寫得好，反正最後也能倒茶拜師。他的研究興趣是市區樹木，我則是環境經濟學，將兩者合起來就是我的研究題目。一年間走訪大小屋邨公園，訪問居民對綠化的態度，屢屢碰壁，無處話淒涼。沒唸過研究式碩士博士的人，難以理解當中辛酸。
『合』也是遇上伯樂。他叫Clive，在澳洲當環境經濟學家、有碧咸式笑容的英國人。承蒙賞識，他給我獎學金，並把我引薦到另一名氣頗大的政治學家，結果我左右逢源，得兩位大師指導，研究與氣候變化有關的社會經濟議題。兩年後的今天，也是得Clive的引薦，加上自己的主動，有機會到歐洲工作。
很少唸BBA會跑去做學術研究，更少的是像我回頭是岸，跑去做跟商業風馬牛不相及的題目，所以我起步特別慢，也因為這樣，必須跑得更快。家境不容許我停下來，也沒有什麼退路，破釜沉舟，學無所成的話，回來更苦。拼了，有點孤注一擲的味道。
這一路看似談笑自若，其實比學跳火圈艱難十倍，所犧牲的也是不為外人足道。別人一天工作七小時，我多一倍，左右開弓，苦也吃兩份。也有點像一個招魂的過程，走一步撈一個靈魂，由市區樹木到氣候變化，由香港到澳洲再到歐洲，愈來愈清楚自己能做什麼，想要什麼。唸財務出身，現在也算半個『環境經濟學家』，卻跟投資商業貌合神離，從沒正式唸過地理和政治學，卻如魚得水、游刃有餘。
表面的東西真的不可信。以前總想著要一入侯門，其實是埋沒興趣，連自己也騙了。保持沈默是我的一面招牌，有點現實主義，總覺得行動最實際。我也不愛唸咒，曾經身上掛著一個十字架足足七年，但若要我把剛剛歸位的魂魄奉獻給某某，不是矯枉過正嗎? 還是『本來無一物』的哲學 – 對，只是哲學 – 比較容易入口。色相皆空，只有你心底那把聲音才最真實。
三十歲，不再跟隨羊群，不再嚮往中環，自命清高? 不算吧，其實我不反對別人唸商科，重點是你有多了解這東西。我也常常說缺錢，所以最近常發的牢騷是那份工作薪水太少，也老是在計算怎樣可以從研究資助裡為自己討多點利益，只不過我的現實主義放眼在象牙塔裡，研究也是錢，學者也得拜金，拜託拿了經費再談理想 (雖然如此，有些研究還是豐儉由人)。象牙塔也燒人間煙火，討經費、發表文章也得學會推銷技倆，初級學者就是孤獨的推銷員。這也是一樣的狗咬狗的世界，試過焦頭爛額，還好有後天訓練，我算是比較會咬那一頭。三歲定八十，天生的商人心態偶爾也會作祟，我可能會是個不錯的academic entrepreneur，可是小動作終歸離不開大道理，決不會把我擁護的環境政經哲學商業化，佛祖能吃得住小鬼，阿彌陀佛。
沈校長曾經當過逸夫書院院長，如果當年他在的話，我會不會早點魂魄歸位呢?
(沈祖堯家書 痛批功利教育: http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/110101/4/m071.html)
(某中大教職員回應沈校長的文章：大學之道 在識時務
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/101230/4/lzfr.html)
學跳火圈不用帶上靈魂
選科的動機，簡單得很，不外乎是就業前景，那年頭經濟不好，重『錢』途也無可厚非。甫入商學院大門，感覺像渡了金一樣，人人都幻想當CEO，最少也得當個什麼什麼師。商學研究不重視哲學基礎，故不入主流學術思想之門，也不會嘮叨什麼任重道遠，秉承經濟學傳統，只論事物的『價錢』而不涉『價值』，訓練職業技能為理所當然，也是眾望所歸。當然，高級一點的master課程，則不是職業訓練所，而是職場俱樂部，多得學員善長慷慨解囊，人間煙火多多益善，高級教授年薪百萬才有著落，這是一個黃金循環，學生成材(財?)，教授也多渡一層金，才有資格顧盼自豪，別忘了畢業生年薪也是課程排名的重要指標，莘莘學子既是金蛋又是母雞。
金蛋我可沒當成。沈校長說大學生缺乏靈魂，慚愧，undergrad年代的我確是一枚遊魂野鬼，少了七魄。商學院裡有一雙無形之手，先賢後進、教輔人員諄諄告誡學生作好職前準備，社稷民祉為重? 抱歉，『朝廷』很需要那五斗米，所以我們是『奉旨搵工』。書要唸，可那只是兼職，更重要的是去大公司當暑期工，找個有名氣的mentor，去exchange，考專業試，考big 4，那年代最好還懂得IT，還得巴結教授拿推薦信。不用像郭靖『為國為民』般腰板挺直，只要贏個青樓薄幸名就行，要會彈會唱會跳，琴棋書畫，CV弄個花團錦簇。師門曰：『你一定要學識踩鋼線、掟飛刀和跳火圈』『變魔術也得拿執照』，商學院食客三千，朱門裡外不是人，好像出了馬戲團就要當凍死骨, 不入大觀園就是阿土伯。校園比倒模廠好些，產品不是一式一樣，而是有ABC餐自行配搭多勞多得，所以有人一畢業就是鳳凰，有人三年後還是山雞，可憐的有些蛋殼也破不了。
真正的畢業證書不是一紙輕如鴻毛，而是硬哼哼的一個工具箱，這樣見工面試的時候才能擲地有聲。可恨我的還生了鏽，屢試不第，不過最後還能討個衙門小吏來當，謝主隆恩，不用當凍死骨。
由馬戲班到象牙塔
蘇東坡被貶才寫出經典詞作，不是那年頭的風暴可能我還是載浮載沉。要是當初在戲班裡歌舞昇平，也不會有出走的勇氣。事情總有個起承轉合，『起』純粹是自我覺悟，『承』則帶點贖罪意味，千金散盡唸個環境學碩士，從那時候開始找回了那七魄。
『轉』是遇上伯樂。作為芸芸眾生的一員，大學成績表上一副大眾面孔，庸庸碌碌平平無奇，冒昧地給大名鼎鼎的詹志勇教授發了個email，為什麼他會看得起我? 可能碩士成績好，也可能研究建議書寫得好，反正最後也能倒茶拜師。他的研究興趣是市區樹木，我則是環境經濟學，將兩者合起來就是我的研究題目。一年間走訪大小屋邨公園，訪問居民對綠化的態度，屢屢碰壁，無處話淒涼。沒唸過研究式碩士博士的人，難以理解當中辛酸。
『合』也是遇上伯樂。他叫Clive，在澳洲當環境經濟學家、有碧咸式笑容的英國人。承蒙賞識，他給我獎學金，並把我引薦到另一名氣頗大的政治學家，結果我左右逢源，得兩位大師指導，研究與氣候變化有關的社會經濟議題。兩年後的今天，也是得Clive的引薦，加上自己的主動，有機會到歐洲工作。
很少唸BBA會跑去做學術研究，更少的是像我回頭是岸，跑去做跟商業風馬牛不相及的題目，所以我起步特別慢，也因為這樣，必須跑得更快。家境不容許我停下來，也沒有什麼退路，破釜沉舟，學無所成的話，回來更苦。拼了，有點孤注一擲的味道。
這一路看似談笑自若，其實比學跳火圈艱難十倍，所犧牲的也是不為外人足道。別人一天工作七小時，我多一倍，左右開弓，苦也吃兩份。也有點像一個招魂的過程，走一步撈一個靈魂，由市區樹木到氣候變化，由香港到澳洲再到歐洲，愈來愈清楚自己能做什麼，想要什麼。唸財務出身，現在也算半個『環境經濟學家』，卻跟投資商業貌合神離，從沒正式唸過地理和政治學，卻如魚得水、游刃有餘。
表面的東西真的不可信。以前總想著要一入侯門，其實是埋沒興趣，連自己也騙了。保持沈默是我的一面招牌，有點現實主義，總覺得行動最實際。我也不愛唸咒，曾經身上掛著一個十字架足足七年，但若要我把剛剛歸位的魂魄奉獻給某某，不是矯枉過正嗎? 還是『本來無一物』的哲學 – 對，只是哲學 – 比較容易入口。色相皆空，只有你心底那把聲音才最真實。
三十歲，不再跟隨羊群，不再嚮往中環，自命清高? 不算吧，其實我不反對別人唸商科，重點是你有多了解這東西。我也常常說缺錢，所以最近常發的牢騷是那份工作薪水太少，也老是在計算怎樣可以從研究資助裡為自己討多點利益，只不過我的現實主義放眼在象牙塔裡，研究也是錢，學者也得拜金，拜託拿了經費再談理想 (雖然如此，有些研究還是豐儉由人)。象牙塔也燒人間煙火，討經費、發表文章也得學會推銷技倆，初級學者就是孤獨的推銷員。這也是一樣的狗咬狗的世界，試過焦頭爛額，還好有後天訓練，我算是比較會咬那一頭。三歲定八十，天生的商人心態偶爾也會作祟，我可能會是個不錯的academic entrepreneur，可是小動作終歸離不開大道理，決不會把我擁護的環境政經哲學商業化，佛祖能吃得住小鬼，阿彌陀佛。
沈校長曾經當過逸夫書院院長，如果當年他在的話，我會不會早點魂魄歸位呢?
(沈祖堯家書 痛批功利教育: http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/110101/4/m071.html)
(某中大教職員回應沈校長的文章：大學之道 在識時務
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/101230/4/lzfr.html)
Friday, December 31, 2010
蘇軾經典詞作三首
蘇軾經典詞作三首，值得欣賞
『定風波』
莫聽穿林打葉聲，何妨吟嘯且徐行。竹杖芒鞋輕勝馬，誰怕? 一蓑煙雨任平生。
料峭春風吹酒醒，微冷。山頭斜照卻相迎。回首向來蕭瑟處，歸去，也無風雨也無晴。
『水調歌頭』
明月幾時有？把酒問青天。不知天上宮闕，今夕是何年。我欲乘風歸去，唯恐瓊樓玉宇，高處不勝寒。起舞弄清影，何似在人間。轉朱閣，低綺戶，照無眠。不應有恨，何事長向別時圓？人有悲歡離合，月有陰晴圓缺，此事古難全。但願人長久，千里共嬋娟。
『江城子』(乙卯正月二十夜記夢)
十年生死兩茫茫。不思量，自難忘。千里孤墳，無處話淒涼。縱使相逢應不識，塵滿面，鬢如霜。夜來幽夢忽還鄉，小軒窗，正梳妝。相顧無言，惟有淚千行。料得年年腸斷處：明月夜，短松岡。
『定風波』
莫聽穿林打葉聲，何妨吟嘯且徐行。竹杖芒鞋輕勝馬，誰怕? 一蓑煙雨任平生。
料峭春風吹酒醒，微冷。山頭斜照卻相迎。回首向來蕭瑟處，歸去，也無風雨也無晴。
『水調歌頭』
明月幾時有？把酒問青天。不知天上宮闕，今夕是何年。我欲乘風歸去，唯恐瓊樓玉宇，高處不勝寒。起舞弄清影，何似在人間。轉朱閣，低綺戶，照無眠。不應有恨，何事長向別時圓？人有悲歡離合，月有陰晴圓缺，此事古難全。但願人長久，千里共嬋娟。
『江城子』(乙卯正月二十夜記夢)
十年生死兩茫茫。不思量，自難忘。千里孤墳，無處話淒涼。縱使相逢應不識，塵滿面，鬢如霜。夜來幽夢忽還鄉，小軒窗，正梳妝。相顧無言，惟有淚千行。料得年年腸斷處：明月夜，短松岡。
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
update
Getting closer to it. I have been chosen as the first choice candidate and invited to visit the institute for a second interview in Scotland. See how it goes.
In the meantime I have been working hard on my thesis. First draft already completed and ready for supervisors' comments.
Sounds like I am about to get rid of something grappling with my life over the last two years. Hopefully.
In the meantime I have been working hard on my thesis. First draft already completed and ready for supervisors' comments.
Sounds like I am about to get rid of something grappling with my life over the last two years. Hopefully.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
『科學非萬能』
有point, 所以當我看完胡適的一本談科學的書之後, 就覺得不必看下去, 因為他誇大了科學的作用, 迷信科學的客觀性, 他還曾說大自然是人類最大敵人要克服之, 民初文人的天真可見一斑。
思考有方﹕科學非萬能 勿盲目迷信
(明報)2010年11月25日 星期四 05:05
【明報專訊】「通識教育科」的「科學、科技與環境」學習範圍，提到科學化、科學證據、科學知識、科學精神和科學方法等名詞和概念，貫串在課程內容當中，到底什麼是「科學方法」？
教科書關於科學方法的標準描述，包括下列幾個步驟，同學都耳熟能詳﹕
“1.界定問題﹕
從觀察中發現問題，並清楚界定問題
2.提出假設﹕
就觀察的結果，作出初步的解釋和假設
3.推斷預測﹕
由假設推出觀察性的預測
4.實驗驗證﹕
設計和運用實驗去檢視假設和預測是否正確
5.作出結論﹕
分析結果，作出結論。如果所得的實驗觀察結果不符合假設和預測，需要重新實驗或提出新的假設。”
大瞻假設 小心求證
上述這套所謂「科學方法」，稱之為「實驗方法」更為準確，而「實驗方法」只是多樣的科學方法之一。「實驗方法」無疑標誌著科學發展史上的轉折點，但就是現代自然科學的成就，很多並不利用「實驗方法」直接證明。宇宙天體的體積重量太大，人類無法改變它們的運行軌迹；微觀世界的基本粒子，我們難以準確掌握它們的位置和速度；地質考古的理論和假設，科學家不可能重複一個以億萬年為時間單位的演變過程等等，都是難以通過實驗去「證明」的例子。
另一方面，即使今天能夠在實驗室裏做實驗，與其說是「證明」了某一理論或假設，倒不如說是做了一次「測試」，今天的實驗結果，科學家無法確認可以在將來每次都能重複。
假如上述實驗方法「五部曲」只是眾多科學方法之一，科學方法又是什麼？用胡適的話說﹕「科學的方法，說來其實很簡單，只不過『尊重事實，尊重證據。』在應用上，科學的方法只不過『大膽的假設，小心的求證』。」。又說﹕「科學態度在於撇開成見，擱起感情，只認得事實，只跟證據走。」不同學科的科學方法，例如天文學方法、量子力學方法、地質學方法等，並不局限於實驗證明而更為多姿多彩。套用美國 教育哲學家杜威（John Dewey）的說話﹕「科學是認識的不斷完善。」（Science is the perfecting of knowing.），科學方法強調不斷求真。 科學方法並不能解决所有問題，有它的適用範圍和局限。例如，科學方法可以告訴我們火力發電和核能發電的碳排放量的差別，也可以幫助研究開發發電技術，但卻無法回答到底哪種發電方式更適合香港的可持續發展，因後者是價值取向問題，科學方法可以提供有助討論的答案，卻並不能回答怎樣才算適合香港可持續發展。
科學方法亦不一定比其他方法優越，用科學方法分析李白杜甫優美的詩篇，結果可能只是一大堆無用數字，並非所有有價值的事物都與科學方法兼容，也沒有必要事事訴諸科學，製造迷信。
（系列十五之八）
文﹕張偉基
思考有方﹕科學非萬能 勿盲目迷信
(明報)2010年11月25日 星期四 05:05
【明報專訊】「通識教育科」的「科學、科技與環境」學習範圍，提到科學化、科學證據、科學知識、科學精神和科學方法等名詞和概念，貫串在課程內容當中，到底什麼是「科學方法」？
教科書關於科學方法的標準描述，包括下列幾個步驟，同學都耳熟能詳﹕
“1.界定問題﹕
從觀察中發現問題，並清楚界定問題
2.提出假設﹕
就觀察的結果，作出初步的解釋和假設
3.推斷預測﹕
由假設推出觀察性的預測
4.實驗驗證﹕
設計和運用實驗去檢視假設和預測是否正確
5.作出結論﹕
分析結果，作出結論。如果所得的實驗觀察結果不符合假設和預測，需要重新實驗或提出新的假設。”
大瞻假設 小心求證
上述這套所謂「科學方法」，稱之為「實驗方法」更為準確，而「實驗方法」只是多樣的科學方法之一。「實驗方法」無疑標誌著科學發展史上的轉折點，但就是現代自然科學的成就，很多並不利用「實驗方法」直接證明。宇宙天體的體積重量太大，人類無法改變它們的運行軌迹；微觀世界的基本粒子，我們難以準確掌握它們的位置和速度；地質考古的理論和假設，科學家不可能重複一個以億萬年為時間單位的演變過程等等，都是難以通過實驗去「證明」的例子。
另一方面，即使今天能夠在實驗室裏做實驗，與其說是「證明」了某一理論或假設，倒不如說是做了一次「測試」，今天的實驗結果，科學家無法確認可以在將來每次都能重複。
假如上述實驗方法「五部曲」只是眾多科學方法之一，科學方法又是什麼？用胡適的話說﹕「科學的方法，說來其實很簡單，只不過『尊重事實，尊重證據。』在應用上，科學的方法只不過『大膽的假設，小心的求證』。」。又說﹕「科學態度在於撇開成見，擱起感情，只認得事實，只跟證據走。」不同學科的科學方法，例如天文學方法、量子力學方法、地質學方法等，並不局限於實驗證明而更為多姿多彩。套用美國 教育哲學家杜威（John Dewey）的說話﹕「科學是認識的不斷完善。」（Science is the perfecting of knowing.），科學方法強調不斷求真。 科學方法並不能解决所有問題，有它的適用範圍和局限。例如，科學方法可以告訴我們火力發電和核能發電的碳排放量的差別，也可以幫助研究開發發電技術，但卻無法回答到底哪種發電方式更適合香港的可持續發展，因後者是價值取向問題，科學方法可以提供有助討論的答案，卻並不能回答怎樣才算適合香港可持續發展。
科學方法亦不一定比其他方法優越，用科學方法分析李白杜甫優美的詩篇，結果可能只是一大堆無用數字，並非所有有價值的事物都與科學方法兼容，也沒有必要事事訴諸科學，製造迷信。
（系列十五之八）
文﹕張偉基
Friday, November 12, 2010
No news (is good news?)
Haven't made much update in the last 6 months. Things are changing with ups and downs. There may be some good news in a couple of weeks. Much remains uncertain though.
Thesis is near completion. With my full commitment my progress sounds incredible to many people. In February I will be travelling to Austria, if everything works well.
Changes are part of life. Quite often I don't actually have a choice, but I just have to choose.
Thesis is near completion. With my full commitment my progress sounds incredible to many people. In February I will be travelling to Austria, if everything works well.
Changes are part of life. Quite often I don't actually have a choice, but I just have to choose.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Grad School Newsletter
'His exceptional strong sense of social and environmental justice is pleasingly contagious. Utopia may not be reachable, but it is worthy of pursuing. Perhaps "it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive" ' Professor Jim described his student - me.
Am I really pursuing utopia? what am I really looking for? Mere knowledge advance, or as he said, justice? or personal fortune? At some stage I have to give an answer.
Am I really pursuing utopia? what am I really looking for? Mere knowledge advance, or as he said, justice? or personal fortune? At some stage I have to give an answer.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Publications
2010 journal publications: 2 full-length articles, 2 short commentaries
6. Lo, A. Y. (2010) ‘Active conflict or passive coherence: The political economy of climate change in China’, Environmental Politics.19 (6), pp. 1012-1017.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es101976r10.1080/09644016.2010.518689
5. Lo, A. Y. (2010) ‘China’s Response to Climate Change’, Environmental Science and Technology. 44 (15), pp. 5689-5690.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es101976r
4.Lo, A. Y. and Jim, C. Y. (2010) ‘Differential community effects on perception and use of urban greenspaces’, Cities. 27 (6), pp. 430-442.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.07.001
3. Lo, A. Y. and Jim, C. Y. (2010) ‘Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong’, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9, pp. 113-120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2010.01.001
No journal publication in 2009.
2008 publications
2. Lo, A. Y. H. (2008) ‘Achieving environmental goals in a competitive electricity market?: Post-colonial Hong Kong, public choice and the role of government’, Energy and Environment, 19(7), pp. 958-978.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/095830508786238297
1. Lo, A. Y. H. (2008) ‘Merging electricity and environment politics of Hong Kong: Identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined’, Energy Policy, 36(4), pp. 1521-1537.
6. Lo, A. Y. (2010) ‘Active conflict or passive coherence: The political economy of climate change in China’, Environmental Politics.19 (6), pp. 1012-1017.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es101976r10.1080/09644016.2010.518689
5. Lo, A. Y. (2010) ‘China’s Response to Climate Change’, Environmental Science and Technology. 44 (15), pp. 5689-5690.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es101976r
4.Lo, A. Y. and Jim, C. Y. (2010) ‘Differential community effects on perception and use of urban greenspaces’, Cities. 27 (6), pp. 430-442.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.07.001
3. Lo, A. Y. and Jim, C. Y. (2010) ‘Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong’, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9, pp. 113-120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2010.01.001
No journal publication in 2009.
2008 publications
2. Lo, A. Y. H. (2008) ‘Achieving environmental goals in a competitive electricity market?: Post-colonial Hong Kong, public choice and the role of government’, Energy and Environment, 19(7), pp. 958-978.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/095830508786238297
1. Lo, A. Y. H. (2008) ‘Merging electricity and environment politics of Hong Kong: Identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined’, Energy Policy, 36(4), pp. 1521-1537.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.006
(can't post the whole thing here due to copyrights. Full text available upon request)
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Climate Change Policy Forum
Fieldwork completed!
All went well.
Organizing a public participatory event like this is not easy at all. It's really an valuable experience though. Feel satisfied by having an open-minded climate sceptic changing to a more supportive position. However there seems to be someone playing game in his response to the questionnaire making the data hard to interpret. Perhaps, this is just part of the real debate.
It's time to move to the next stage - writing up thesis.
All went well.
Organizing a public participatory event like this is not easy at all. It's really an valuable experience though. Feel satisfied by having an open-minded climate sceptic changing to a more supportive position. However there seems to be someone playing game in his response to the questionnaire making the data hard to interpret. Perhaps, this is just part of the real debate.
It's time to move to the next stage - writing up thesis.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Belated 2009 Review
好久沒在這裡認真寫過什麼了
去年風高浪急，多災多難，由年頭黑到年尾，風波多於驚喜，直至現在仍是烏雲蓋頂。
年頭發生什麼就不說了，該知道的人會知道
由三月起就同老闆找research partner，託老闆的福(老闆C - 我有兩個老闆)，很快就找到個同一個department、同老闆有點交情且相當友善的lady, W(一位嬸嬸)合作，可惜談不了兩回，就被告知funding body關門大吉，合作告吹，於是又再重新上路...
其餘時間一直埋首寫literature review，遊走於一大堆文獻之間，且寫且看，日短夜長，三個多月光境就完成research proposal及部份literature review。
五月底搬進校內宿舍，獨立open kitchen及浴室，自有天地，而且價錢合理，只是沒以前中大宿舍般熱鬧，還好宿舍每星期三也有免費的high table dinner，彷英國大學傳統，有點像哈利波特開學聚餐，裝潢類近，有燭光有長桌，但沒如此高規格，也不用formal dresing，氣氛比港大的高桌晚宴稍有不如，食物質素一般，但無論如何，總算有點人氣。
轉眼到了六月，南半球的冬天沒比我想像中冷。甫步入六月就present了我的research proposal，算是進度考核吧，由於錯選地點(不在大學校內)，結果出席者寥寥，也沒打緊，反正也會過的。
不久老闆就告之一個令我當場呆若木雞的消息。話說我數月前，依據碩士論文改編，寫成了一篇理論文章，打算投稿，老闆曾答應會看一看給點意見，然而到了四月他還是沒空看上一眼，我心灰意冷，就決定自行把稿件寄到某期刊。巧合的是稿件竟然輾轉到了老闆手中，原來該期刊編輯收到了兩份評審報告，一篇對我那篇文章持正面評價，另一篇就狠批，編輯對是否接受頗為猶疑，於是另然找了兩個評審再review，其中一個就是我老闆，因為我偷偷投稿之時沒告訴他，所以一時頗感尷尬。
還好那篇文章對正老闆胃口，他告訴我收到這篇文章，很認真的看了一次，認同觀點但認為結構有可改善之處，最後他給編輯發了一份詳細且正面的報告。不幸的是另一個評審一方面在報告裡說自己不適合評審這篇文章，也沒給什麼詳細中肯意見，另一方面卻建議拒絕發表，兩份報告一長一短、一正一負，卻不知何故編輯仍是決定不接受。我只好悻悻然地另投別處了。
七、八月正值寒冬，白天依然陽光普照，因此雖寒冷卻仍感舒服，已把宿舍當成辦公室的我仍是埋首寫literature review，略有小成，亦把部份改寫成期刊文章，準備跟老闆一起發表，另一篇則打算投到department內的working paper series。
八月尾接到好消息，我得獎了，是港大Graduate School是李嘉誠獎，每年全校頒六個，全校文學/社會科學學系的哲學碩士畢業生當中，名額只有一個，那就是我，這不但為本學系增光，也算是一個紀錄 - 不，是兩個，我是第一個地埋學畢業生拿這個獎，而我只花了一年就唸完 (平均要兩年)。
九月初春，我把那篇打算投稿的文章交給另一個老闆(老闆J)看，反應相當正面，於是我將之也交給老闆C，等他批改完就一同發表，可惜六個月後的今天他還沒『有空』瞥上一眼，這是後話。
此時我開始為我的研究計劃有點擔心，這個時候該開始籌劃fieldwork，但老闆C七、八月身在外地，無法當面傾談，到九月他回來卻帶給我一個壞消息，他有可能離開其工作單位。
話說他本準備發表一篇論文，內容包括對澳洲氣候政策的質疑，偏偏他的工作單位是CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization)，算是澳洲政府屬下的科研旗艦，我的獎學金也來自CSIRO，故他的去留可能會對我的去留有影響。CSIRO有學術審查的機制，高層極不希望老闆C發表該文章，甚至出手干預，寫信到該期刊阻止發表，這時候老闆C正在跟高層談判，其時尚未有結果，但因為這個不明朗因素，我要待他的去向確定了，才能繼續計劃我的fieldwork，九月初到十月中，除了寫理論文章、繼續博覽群書以外，實在沒多大作為。
十月底終於有機會到Canberra以後一遊，地點是澳洲北部城市Darwin。這次到該地倒不是為了旅遊，其實是出席一個地區性學術會議，會上我present了那篇打算發表的文章。會議的參與人數不多，六十人左右吧，大家都醉翁之意不在酒，主要都是見見學術界朋友，及到乘機到外地暢遊一番。Darwin一年皆夏，地理上接近馬來西亞，平均溫度30多度，是一個旅遊城市，是為到內陸探險之入口，陽光海灘，城內人人皆一臉閑懶，短衫短褲，感覺有點像台灣墾丁，是次會議的主辦人可謂『用心良苦』!
十一月初回到Canberra，酷熱夏天來臨，不過這時候我卻選擇逃回香港，主要是為了親自上台領獎，也為看看家人。頒獎禮上獲贈足金金牌一枚，據說可賣上萬元，另加詹教授台上為我得獎致詞，此行物有所值。其餘大部份時期都外出跟朋友吃飯，基本上無事可記。
與此同時，我和詹教授合寫的三篇期刊文章之中，終於有一篇有回音。第一篇的評審報告意見稍為偏向負面，其中一位評審持相反的學派觀點，我在給編輯的回應裡對他的觀點大肆批評，經過兩番往來，文章終被接納。 另一篇則於本年初才有回音，意見一正一負，現正在等候進一步回應。另一篇則不幸被拒，於是我們另投他刊。
這數篇文章內容全都是出自我的碩士論文，我巧妙地將之分柝做三篇發表。初稿寫於2008年9月，詹教授貴人事忙，好幾個月後才抽空修改。修改的篇幅頗多，主要為我的寫作技巧不熟練之故，英文文法和句子結構也多有不妥，給他修飾後，行雲流水，可讀性大大提高。不過期刊評審似乎多不滿足，偶有指其文句不佳之評語，不過我對詹教授精巧流暢的英語寫作風格還是信心十足。
十二月初，正值盛夏，偶爾來個37、38度高溫，走在街上猶如熱窩烤肉。那時我剛從香港回來，舟車勞頓，當天回到家我都一直在休息沒幹什活，由於平日都沒來電，我也懶得把手機開動。這麼懶惰一次就教我抱憾了。原來在此前數天老闆C已經 - 是已經 - 辭職不幹，我回來當天就是他的last day，同事A好幾次給我電話卻打不通，到了晚上我看到留這，回電卻沒人接，到他回電我卻去了洗澡沒能接，渾然不知事態嚴重的我，想著：『該不會有什麼重要事找我吧，明天回辦公室再談好了』。第二天回去了，身旁那位女同事L卻告之這一重大變故，於是我火速致電同事A，原來這個時候老闆C已經身在機場，正前往挪威，一如計劃的到當地當visiting professor，兩個多月後才回來，於是我只有無奈的跟他在電話中道別......
他一走，我的研究進度大受影響，首先我要在CSIRO另找一個老闆，給過數次傾談，W願意接手當我的老闆，這也是塞翁失馬，因為她對的fieldwork經驗比老闆C還要豐富，對我有很大幫助。另一邊廂，老闆C臨走前也不忘確保我應有的研究資源得以延續，他跟高層談妥了，我的獎學金及研究經費不受影響，人雖走倒沒有茶涼。
不過，我仍然要為fieldwork的安排四出奔走，這時候名氣極大的老闆J出手，牽頭拉攏另一位老闆 (S，其實不算是我的老闆，只算是我的thesis committee裡，除我兩個老闆以外的第三位成員，也是他們以前的學生)，讓我參與他正準備展開的研究。
一切安排停當，不過魔鬼在細節裡。阿S一方面忙得不可開交，跟我談的機會不多，另方面我也太缺乏相關經驗，有點手足無措。話說我們這項研究是關於澳洲市民對氣勢政策的態度，除了問卷我們還會舉辦小組研討會，讓他們討論，而我們會研究他們的態度轉變、micro-political dynamic，以及其環境價值之特質等。作為一個非本地人，我對如何安排這個研討會實在是有點徬徨，不知從何入手，從十二月以來到三月，跟S同老闆W往還好幾次，也沒什麼大進展，而且負責我的研究資金的行政單位及高層工作效率極低，拖慢了我的進度足足一個月，結果是現在三月底才算有點眉目，但對於如何落實細節，我仍是處於被動，百般無奈。
期間，我除了等待各方回應外無事可做。唯一可做的仍是寫理論文章，我跟同A還有老闆C正在合寫另一篇期刊文章，我為主筆(第一作者)，自問寫得文理清晰、理據縱橫，算是略有小成，同事A及我認為此文當可引起小小波瀾。
此時我仍是無事可做，又只能寫另一篇理論文章，屈指一算這我已正式發表了三篇期刊文章，另外三篇還在評審過程中，兩個完稿待投，現在這一篇是九篇了。想來我的期刊文章數目，可能足以申請以發表文章來取得PhD學位 (比較普遍的是以一篇8萬字左右的長論文)，執筆之時還在考慮。
上個月老闆C回來澳洲短住一個月，主要為搬家而來，他在奧地利找到了一正教授職位，年底到位。這兩個月我先後跟他見面兩次，他說明年或可讓我以visiting PhD student的身份到其任職的大學交流半年，我當然願意，一為跟他多點來往，商討合作機會，二為擴闊人脈，說不定有助在歐洲找工作。
如此一年多過去了，春去秋來，這個初秋時候，一天四季。社交生活淡如水，飲食也是乏善可陳，然而學術生活卻跟天氣一樣起伏交替，錯綜複雜。此段時間正為最難捱的時候，難過也得過，還是期待明年此刻會是身處歐洲某隅優遊自在吧。
去年風高浪急，多災多難，由年頭黑到年尾，風波多於驚喜，直至現在仍是烏雲蓋頂。
年頭發生什麼就不說了，該知道的人會知道
由三月起就同老闆找research partner，託老闆的福(老闆C - 我有兩個老闆)，很快就找到個同一個department、同老闆有點交情且相當友善的lady, W(一位嬸嬸)合作，可惜談不了兩回，就被告知funding body關門大吉，合作告吹，於是又再重新上路...
其餘時間一直埋首寫literature review，遊走於一大堆文獻之間，且寫且看，日短夜長，三個多月光境就完成research proposal及部份literature review。
五月底搬進校內宿舍，獨立open kitchen及浴室，自有天地，而且價錢合理，只是沒以前中大宿舍般熱鬧，還好宿舍每星期三也有免費的high table dinner，彷英國大學傳統，有點像哈利波特開學聚餐，裝潢類近，有燭光有長桌，但沒如此高規格，也不用formal dresing，氣氛比港大的高桌晚宴稍有不如，食物質素一般，但無論如何，總算有點人氣。
轉眼到了六月，南半球的冬天沒比我想像中冷。甫步入六月就present了我的research proposal，算是進度考核吧，由於錯選地點(不在大學校內)，結果出席者寥寥，也沒打緊，反正也會過的。
不久老闆就告之一個令我當場呆若木雞的消息。話說我數月前，依據碩士論文改編，寫成了一篇理論文章，打算投稿，老闆曾答應會看一看給點意見，然而到了四月他還是沒空看上一眼，我心灰意冷，就決定自行把稿件寄到某期刊。巧合的是稿件竟然輾轉到了老闆手中，原來該期刊編輯收到了兩份評審報告，一篇對我那篇文章持正面評價，另一篇就狠批，編輯對是否接受頗為猶疑，於是另然找了兩個評審再review，其中一個就是我老闆，因為我偷偷投稿之時沒告訴他，所以一時頗感尷尬。
還好那篇文章對正老闆胃口，他告訴我收到這篇文章，很認真的看了一次，認同觀點但認為結構有可改善之處，最後他給編輯發了一份詳細且正面的報告。不幸的是另一個評審一方面在報告裡說自己不適合評審這篇文章，也沒給什麼詳細中肯意見，另一方面卻建議拒絕發表，兩份報告一長一短、一正一負，卻不知何故編輯仍是決定不接受。我只好悻悻然地另投別處了。
七、八月正值寒冬，白天依然陽光普照，因此雖寒冷卻仍感舒服，已把宿舍當成辦公室的我仍是埋首寫literature review，略有小成，亦把部份改寫成期刊文章，準備跟老闆一起發表，另一篇則打算投到department內的working paper series。
八月尾接到好消息，我得獎了，是港大Graduate School是李嘉誠獎，每年全校頒六個，全校文學/社會科學學系的哲學碩士畢業生當中，名額只有一個，那就是我，這不但為本學系增光，也算是一個紀錄 - 不，是兩個，我是第一個地埋學畢業生拿這個獎，而我只花了一年就唸完 (平均要兩年)。
九月初春，我把那篇打算投稿的文章交給另一個老闆(老闆J)看，反應相當正面，於是我將之也交給老闆C，等他批改完就一同發表，可惜六個月後的今天他還沒『有空』瞥上一眼，這是後話。
此時我開始為我的研究計劃有點擔心，這個時候該開始籌劃fieldwork，但老闆C七、八月身在外地，無法當面傾談，到九月他回來卻帶給我一個壞消息，他有可能離開其工作單位。
話說他本準備發表一篇論文，內容包括對澳洲氣候政策的質疑，偏偏他的工作單位是CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization)，算是澳洲政府屬下的科研旗艦，我的獎學金也來自CSIRO，故他的去留可能會對我的去留有影響。CSIRO有學術審查的機制，高層極不希望老闆C發表該文章，甚至出手干預，寫信到該期刊阻止發表，這時候老闆C正在跟高層談判，其時尚未有結果，但因為這個不明朗因素，我要待他的去向確定了，才能繼續計劃我的fieldwork，九月初到十月中，除了寫理論文章、繼續博覽群書以外，實在沒多大作為。
十月底終於有機會到Canberra以後一遊，地點是澳洲北部城市Darwin。這次到該地倒不是為了旅遊，其實是出席一個地區性學術會議，會上我present了那篇打算發表的文章。會議的參與人數不多，六十人左右吧，大家都醉翁之意不在酒，主要都是見見學術界朋友，及到乘機到外地暢遊一番。Darwin一年皆夏，地理上接近馬來西亞，平均溫度30多度，是一個旅遊城市，是為到內陸探險之入口，陽光海灘，城內人人皆一臉閑懶，短衫短褲，感覺有點像台灣墾丁，是次會議的主辦人可謂『用心良苦』!
十一月初回到Canberra，酷熱夏天來臨，不過這時候我卻選擇逃回香港，主要是為了親自上台領獎，也為看看家人。頒獎禮上獲贈足金金牌一枚，據說可賣上萬元，另加詹教授台上為我得獎致詞，此行物有所值。其餘大部份時期都外出跟朋友吃飯，基本上無事可記。
與此同時，我和詹教授合寫的三篇期刊文章之中，終於有一篇有回音。第一篇的評審報告意見稍為偏向負面，其中一位評審持相反的學派觀點，我在給編輯的回應裡對他的觀點大肆批評，經過兩番往來，文章終被接納。 另一篇則於本年初才有回音，意見一正一負，現正在等候進一步回應。另一篇則不幸被拒，於是我們另投他刊。
這數篇文章內容全都是出自我的碩士論文，我巧妙地將之分柝做三篇發表。初稿寫於2008年9月，詹教授貴人事忙，好幾個月後才抽空修改。修改的篇幅頗多，主要為我的寫作技巧不熟練之故，英文文法和句子結構也多有不妥，給他修飾後，行雲流水，可讀性大大提高。不過期刊評審似乎多不滿足，偶有指其文句不佳之評語，不過我對詹教授精巧流暢的英語寫作風格還是信心十足。
十二月初，正值盛夏，偶爾來個37、38度高溫，走在街上猶如熱窩烤肉。那時我剛從香港回來，舟車勞頓，當天回到家我都一直在休息沒幹什活，由於平日都沒來電，我也懶得把手機開動。這麼懶惰一次就教我抱憾了。原來在此前數天老闆C已經 - 是已經 - 辭職不幹，我回來當天就是他的last day，同事A好幾次給我電話卻打不通，到了晚上我看到留這，回電卻沒人接，到他回電我卻去了洗澡沒能接，渾然不知事態嚴重的我，想著：『該不會有什麼重要事找我吧，明天回辦公室再談好了』。第二天回去了，身旁那位女同事L卻告之這一重大變故，於是我火速致電同事A，原來這個時候老闆C已經身在機場，正前往挪威，一如計劃的到當地當visiting professor，兩個多月後才回來，於是我只有無奈的跟他在電話中道別......
他一走，我的研究進度大受影響，首先我要在CSIRO另找一個老闆，給過數次傾談，W願意接手當我的老闆，這也是塞翁失馬，因為她對的fieldwork經驗比老闆C還要豐富，對我有很大幫助。另一邊廂，老闆C臨走前也不忘確保我應有的研究資源得以延續，他跟高層談妥了，我的獎學金及研究經費不受影響，人雖走倒沒有茶涼。
不過，我仍然要為fieldwork的安排四出奔走，這時候名氣極大的老闆J出手，牽頭拉攏另一位老闆 (S，其實不算是我的老闆，只算是我的thesis committee裡，除我兩個老闆以外的第三位成員，也是他們以前的學生)，讓我參與他正準備展開的研究。
一切安排停當，不過魔鬼在細節裡。阿S一方面忙得不可開交，跟我談的機會不多，另方面我也太缺乏相關經驗，有點手足無措。話說我們這項研究是關於澳洲市民對氣勢政策的態度，除了問卷我們還會舉辦小組研討會，讓他們討論，而我們會研究他們的態度轉變、micro-political dynamic，以及其環境價值之特質等。作為一個非本地人，我對如何安排這個研討會實在是有點徬徨，不知從何入手，從十二月以來到三月，跟S同老闆W往還好幾次，也沒什麼大進展，而且負責我的研究資金的行政單位及高層工作效率極低，拖慢了我的進度足足一個月，結果是現在三月底才算有點眉目，但對於如何落實細節，我仍是處於被動，百般無奈。
期間，我除了等待各方回應外無事可做。唯一可做的仍是寫理論文章，我跟同A還有老闆C正在合寫另一篇期刊文章，我為主筆(第一作者)，自問寫得文理清晰、理據縱橫，算是略有小成，同事A及我認為此文當可引起小小波瀾。
此時我仍是無事可做，又只能寫另一篇理論文章，屈指一算這我已正式發表了三篇期刊文章，另外三篇還在評審過程中，兩個完稿待投，現在這一篇是九篇了。想來我的期刊文章數目，可能足以申請以發表文章來取得PhD學位 (比較普遍的是以一篇8萬字左右的長論文)，執筆之時還在考慮。
上個月老闆C回來澳洲短住一個月，主要為搬家而來，他在奧地利找到了一正教授職位，年底到位。這兩個月我先後跟他見面兩次，他說明年或可讓我以visiting PhD student的身份到其任職的大學交流半年，我當然願意，一為跟他多點來往，商討合作機會，二為擴闊人脈，說不定有助在歐洲找工作。
如此一年多過去了，春去秋來，這個初秋時候，一天四季。社交生活淡如水，飲食也是乏善可陳，然而學術生活卻跟天氣一樣起伏交替，錯綜複雜。此段時間正為最難捱的時候，難過也得過，還是期待明年此刻會是身處歐洲某隅優遊自在吧。
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The gagged ex- CSIRO economist
The gagged economist and my supervisor, who has now moved to Norway and later Austria. He was in NSW for a seminar on his controversial paper on carbon trading. Here is the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWQ4ENYKZz4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWQ4ENYKZz4
Thursday, December 3, 2009
He has ALREADY gone!
What would you think when you are the last one to know your supervisor's resignation? He has ALREADY gone when I get back!! I couldn't even talk to him face-to-face as he was boarding when I finally got contact with him on phone!
The day I was back was his last day. Clive's resignation came with effect in two days. He has planned to relocate to Norway for a visiting professorship a couple of months back, but did not intend to put his resignation on until mid 2010. From what I have heard he got some more pressure from the CSIRO management on his to-be-published paper, plus he suffered from mental stress to a point that led him to seek medical advice. He couldn't afford to stay anymore.
So what will happen to me? My scholarship has been secured. Supervision is not going to be a problem as he is likely to remain in my supervisory panel and someone else down the corridor will be assigned as my CSIRO supervisor mainly for administrative purposes. It is more like he is shifting from being my 'executive' supervisor to a 'non-executive' one. There is possibility that I can use Clive's unused funding for fieldwork. Sounds not too bad!
It wouldn't be a big problem as long as project funding and good project partners could be identified. I hope I can join Clive somewhere in Europe in the later stages of my PhD (as visiting student). Yet it is still frustrating when the one who brought me in has quitted and moved to the other end of the Earth - feel like being abandoned.
The day I was back was his last day. Clive's resignation came with effect in two days. He has planned to relocate to Norway for a visiting professorship a couple of months back, but did not intend to put his resignation on until mid 2010. From what I have heard he got some more pressure from the CSIRO management on his to-be-published paper, plus he suffered from mental stress to a point that led him to seek medical advice. He couldn't afford to stay anymore.
So what will happen to me? My scholarship has been secured. Supervision is not going to be a problem as he is likely to remain in my supervisory panel and someone else down the corridor will be assigned as my CSIRO supervisor mainly for administrative purposes. It is more like he is shifting from being my 'executive' supervisor to a 'non-executive' one. There is possibility that I can use Clive's unused funding for fieldwork. Sounds not too bad!
It wouldn't be a big problem as long as project funding and good project partners could be identified. I hope I can join Clive somewhere in Europe in the later stages of my PhD (as visiting student). Yet it is still frustrating when the one who brought me in has quitted and moved to the other end of the Earth - feel like being abandoned.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Things change
It is aweful when your PhD supervisor decides to leave the organization when your stipend is taken from his research grant. This made (still does) me stressful and at times depressed. Coz it is possible for my scholarship to be suspended although I was told it should be fine.
Yet for sure there will be some changes to my project. I am inclined to stay in ANU and the supervisory panel is likely to remain unchanged. Timing becomes an issue as the extension of the scholarship now becomes uncertain. Also I will be forced to work more independently on a project that can't be done without teamwork. Plus I am still not confident in doing a social experiment in such a different culture given language barriers and unfamiliarity.
I enjoy working alone, but being forced alone is frustrating. Same for social relationships.
Yet for sure there will be some changes to my project. I am inclined to stay in ANU and the supervisory panel is likely to remain unchanged. Timing becomes an issue as the extension of the scholarship now becomes uncertain. Also I will be forced to work more independently on a project that can't be done without teamwork. Plus I am still not confident in doing a social experiment in such a different culture given language barriers and unfamiliarity.
I enjoy working alone, but being forced alone is frustrating. Same for social relationships.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
做學者跟做Sales有沒有分別?
做學者跟做Sales有沒有分別?
本質上是沒有。
行外人總覺得做學者不吃人間煙火，社會地位高，薪水不俗，工作穩定，而且工作悠閒 – 教教書、寫寫文章就是了。統統不對。放在二、三十年前的話倒不錯，老早簽了長約的有鐵飯碗護身，好不自在。但今時今日新人要在學術界謀一官半職，卻要懂得推銷，『營業額』要達標才能生存。
其實由唸博士開始，我們就已經離不開這個『跑數』式求生遊戲。首先，必須了解『Publications壓倒一切』這個黃金定律。這是你的營業指標，PhD畢業後找不找到工作、往後晉升如何，全都取決於發表了多少篇學術文章、在哪些期刊裡發表，博士論文洋洋10萬字，寫得天花龍鳳也抵不上一篇短短7000字的期刊文章。同理，博士學位是次要，是副產品，主角是期刊文章 (兩個博士學位大概也抵不上兩篇期刊文章!)，論文未寫好就要趕發表，發表有著落，論文未寫好也可以有offer。一篇也沒有嗎? 大概連面試機會也渺茫。教授們都有達標的壓力，不會發表就是不會生蛋的母雞，又或者是雙層魚柳包 - 多舊魚，是冗員，所以不達標就要被照肺，再不長進就被踢走。大學要趕排名，而排名很受校內教授的發表量所影響，沒發表就是沒貢獻，誰容許你只是教教書而已?
那麼發表到底是什麼一回事? 這不是一般向報紙雜誌投稿那麼簡單。過程是寫一篇7000-8000的文章，寄到適合的期刊，然後期刊編輯會找兩至三個行家審閱，他們說行就行，說不行的話就退稿，當然編輯也可以推翻他們的決定，但一般也是以reviewers的意見為主。文章擲地有聲固然是必要條件，英文也要好，文章要層次分明。評審過程中，那些reviewers是匿名的，投稿者不會知道他們是何許人，reviewers也不會知投稿者是誰。Reviewers是非常critical的，意見多半尖酸狠辣，不留情面。小弟幸運地自行發表過兩篇文章，有些人以為這很了不起，但不為人知的是，我被退稿的次數比接納發表的還要多，被退稿的幾次裡，評語都相當相當尖酸刻薄，有些是接近嘲笑的地步，批評我英文不到家我倒沒話可說，畢業自己英語寫作能力有限。背上被插了幾把刀的感覺實在不太好受，但在這行混，被人插是家常便飯，所以面皮要夠厚，心臟要挺得住。
批評其實沒有什麼不合理，畢竟學術就是要批判思考。可惜有些reviewers好像把你當殺父仇人似的，吹毛求疵不在話下，文章裡說了兩句不中聽的說話就會以reviewer之身份大肆蹂躙一番。詹教授跟我說，評審文章很花時間，有空義務評審文章的很多都是閒來沒事做的學者，他們有些是為批評而批評，有沒有毛病都要罵個你狗血淋頭才顯得出自己有本事，不然，你沒問題就是我有問題。當批判成為一個目的就變成批鬥，學術本有門派之分，不同門派互插實屬本份，可是學者不是外人想像中那麼事事客觀，『客觀科學』之說從來都是用來掩護主觀意願，遇到有不對自己門派的多半不會怎樣包容，因為推翻別人就可以讓自己跑出。有人說過現代科學的進化是靠推翻人家的學說而來的，這句話是有道理，卻為盲目相信有單一『真理』存在而付出代價，也為『為批評而批評』這做法提供了動機。
好了，能發表文章是不是可以安枕無憂呢? 妄想。簡單來說，沒40歲也沒飽飯吃。博士畢業生一般要先當兩至三年『後博士研究員』才有機會當上助理教授。『博士後』是一種短期合約職位，主要是當老闆的跟班，做做研究，自由度不高，薪水只有2萬多，沒很多福利，沒雙糧沒花紅，沒晉升機會 – 約滿不會直升助理教授。事實上能不能找到『博士後』也沒有保證，以社會科學學系而言，一個學系通常只有兩三個空缺，二/三流大學更可能只有一個，然而每年博士畢業生往往多於此數，所以是僧多粥少，難怪博士畢業生的失業率比本科畢業還高。一般而言，博士畢業也差不多30歲，再過兩年『博士後』，已經過了而立之年，該穩定下來了吧。不對，好戲還在後頭，助理教授的空缺比博士後更少，就算有名的大學也不會年年請人，說三、四年才請一個也不過份。競爭大不在話下，沒三、四篇發表文章也不用多想，更殘酷的這是一個『三年又三年』的煎熬。新入職的助理教授首六年是合約制，三年review一次，發表量不夠就out，過得三年再review一次，合格就多半會升職，不然就out。當由32歲開始算起，助理教授到38歲才『有機會』坐正 - 加薪和轉長工。人工4萬多，好像不錯，但別忘記在30歲前都是當廉價勞工，萬多元薪水夠吃不夠儲，搞不好留下一屁股債，正正是過得一日得一日，要儲錢結婚生仔卻是有心無力。還有，38歲有得留低固然要謝主隆恩，沒有的話怎辦，博士學位在大學以外有屁用 (尤其是在香港)，由低做起當個跑腿research assistant會不會太丟臉? 去當中學教師也嫌老吧，唸社會科學的『楂兜』的風險更高。有不少人轉去當instructor，就是專責教書那類講師，薪水不高，沒啥晉升機會，不會自動升上助理教授，永遠是合約制，隨時被兜走，沒保障，比中學教師還不如。十年寒窗得個桔，仔細老婆嫩，怎辦?
學術圈很講究關係和學術血統，唸博士要年年去研討會不真的為了發表什麼，而是拉關係，正面點說是找合作機會，也要面皮厚，要巴結明星教授，巴結期刊編輯。論文指導老師也不能得罪，每一個學術領域都劃分了無數sub-fields，研究範圍細分之下，變得既專且窄。能做指導老師的一般有一定經驗，而由於圈子小，老師亦往往都為行內人所認識，開罪了老師就等於在該圈子裡留下惡名。學術界極重視師長推薦，美國大學更如是，如果老師對你不多關照，推薦信沒寫好，大概求職時也會處處踫壁。
工作悠閒? 發夢，如果算時薪的話可能比文員只好一點點。剛才說合格的意思據說是一年發表最少兩篇質量不錯的文章，這要求在社會科學界裡這也不算過份。可是要發表一篇文章要過五關斬六將，嘔心瀝血的嘔出來的，寫學術文章跟寫專欄文章差天共地，我算寫東西寫得快了，認真寫也往往要花上一天才寫得一頁 400-500字左右，更別說前後預備資料和文章編輯工作，要由頭寫起7000字去投稿，前後最少足足要用一整個月時間。但當學者還不是寫文章就行，還要教書，現在的大學生態度惡劣，教書大概也是令人嘔算的工作吧 (對我而言是)。還有，研究資金不會從天上掉下來，教授要錢就要寫proposal去fight，完事後可能還要寫一堆report和presentation向米飯班主 (提供研究資金的機構)交代，過程相當費時。除此之外，還有林林總總的校內行政工作，例如收生，管理undergrad那班馬騮相信是十分傷神，最好也搞個碩士班來吸水 (不然怎樣養起教授們)，結果晚上休息時間又奉獻了給老闆們 (碩士學生)，還有要不停看學術文章來確保不會脫節，我認真全神看一篇大概要3小時。結果，一個助理教授最好朝七晚十，周末也上班，多勞多得，不勞就早抖，壓力之下只好拼命，不成功便成仁，陰功。
最後就是社會地位，不用多說，隨著大學數目上升，教授數量多就變得不稀罕。在老一輩心中或許光環仍在，可是年輕一點的卻可能不以為然，其中一個原因或許是金錢因素，年輕教授薪金低，找工作不容易，工作也不穩定，相比起同樣是大學或碩士畢業、身處熱門行業中的才俊猶有不及。30多歲還只拿2萬多月薪，人家十年前已經有這個數目了，如此怎教人不看低一線? 唸社會科學的有時要去『乞』數據，找這個幫忙找那個疏通，臉皮不厚不成，以前我當研究助理時，要去學校跟一些老師聯絡來收集數據(就是找學生做survey)，我那位教授上司以前當副校長，比這些老師高幾班，可是為了要他們幫忙，對他們也不免有點低聲下氣，老師有怨言也只好硬食，不然以後人家不再給面子就麻煩了。我自己做的那個survey，要做上門訪問，也是見盡人情冷暖，要看面色，香港大學又如何? 學者要走入民間，放下身段是理所當然，也正因如此，不在高高在上。
很多當博士/學者的都是外表風光，其實是啞子吃黃蓮，有苦自己知，博士生更是不消說。以前博士畢業就等於升上神枱，現在則是被趕入鬥獸場的開始，狗咬狗的慘況其實不異於市場。博士學位既是入場劵，也是負累，成也蕭何，敗也蕭何，實際價值比MBA還低。所以，學術之路其實是相當tough的，沒有『雖千萬人吾往矣』的心態的話，請三思。
Saturday, September 12, 2009
'This is really wonderful'
The best thing to an aspiring scholar is not money, but recognition. Thanks Li Ka Shing.
**************************************
Dear Mr LO Yu Hong,
I am pleased to inform you that you have been selected as one of the recipients of the Li Ka Shing Prizes (2007-2008).
The Li Ka Shing Prizes are set up by using part of a generous donation from Dr. Li Ka Shing. The Prizes are awarded annually on the basis of academic excellence, four for the PhD theses and two for the MPhil theses. The Prizes, in the form of gold medals (for desk display), shall in each year be awarded to graduates from within the two faculty groups – Group A, comprising PhD and MPhil graduates from the Faculties of Architecture, Arts, Business & Economics, Education, Law and Social Sciences; and Group B, comprising PhD and MPhil graduates from the Faculties of Dentistry, Engineering, Medicine and Science.
[..................]
May I take this opportunity to congratulate you for winning the Prize. I look forward to seeing you at the award presentation ceremony.
Yours sincerely,
(Miss) Anna Wong
Executive Officer
Graduate School
The University of Hong Kong
******************************************
Dear Alex,
I am delighted to learn of the outcome of our nomination. This is really wonderful. I offer my warmest congratulations on your outstanding achievement. We look forward to shaking your hand at the ceremony.
Regards,
Jim
C Y Jim
Department of Geography
The University of Hong Kong
**************************************
Dear Mr LO Yu Hong,
I am pleased to inform you that you have been selected as one of the recipients of the Li Ka Shing Prizes (2007-2008).
The Li Ka Shing Prizes are set up by using part of a generous donation from Dr. Li Ka Shing. The Prizes are awarded annually on the basis of academic excellence, four for the PhD theses and two for the MPhil theses. The Prizes, in the form of gold medals (for desk display), shall in each year be awarded to graduates from within the two faculty groups – Group A, comprising PhD and MPhil graduates from the Faculties of Architecture, Arts, Business & Economics, Education, Law and Social Sciences; and Group B, comprising PhD and MPhil graduates from the Faculties of Dentistry, Engineering, Medicine and Science.
[..................]
May I take this opportunity to congratulate you for winning the Prize. I look forward to seeing you at the award presentation ceremony.
Yours sincerely,
(Miss) Anna Wong
Executive Officer
Graduate School
The University of Hong Kong
******************************************
Dear Alex,
I am delighted to learn of the outcome of our nomination. This is really wonderful. I offer my warmest congratulations on your outstanding achievement. We look forward to shaking your hand at the ceremony.
Regards,
Jim
C Y Jim
Department of Geography
The University of Hong Kong
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)