replies

Hi again,
first of all, to Carol I like to apologize for my occasional slips of less than classy word use (having initially thought that the posts shall solely be read by hot-tempered and rebellious youths). Of course, I'm sure everyone who knows me personally understands that those languages are adopted entirely for the purpose of dramatism. As for my answer to Carol's question, I do think that both tradition and under-funding contribute to the many problems I see. On one hand, here is a notoriously known institution that caters greatly to the aristocrats or, more often now, meritocrats. As one fellow college acquaintance said, being at Oxford is equivalent to being a member of a secret society. Outsiders here are treated as "outsiders", unprivileged to taste the elixir of elitists' luxury, nor, to use the toilets associated with it. On a more financial perspective, the English educators are renowned for their sub-par salary, especially in the science department. Statistically, for the same professional status and work intensity, intellectuals here receive nearly half the reward as their American collaborators. Such monetary disrespect is also reflected on the departments as well. For instance, in zoology the front door security guard is also the academic secretary, in addition, numerous compartments within the building are constantly being shut down due to a lack of resource. Unlike the states, graduates students here can rarely follow their academic pursuit when seeking adviser, instead, their admittance is only considered in research groups of sufficient finance. With contracts drawn for three years (no exceptions), most PhD candidates must either self-support afterwards or sacrifice their results' quality in exchange for a quicker graduation date. Unsurprisingly, many ended up abandoning science as their adolescent passion for it was smothered to nonexistence. Indeed, Dr. Peter Chesson from EEB was quite insightful when he consistently persuaded me to remain in the US for post-graduate education.
Now for a quick reply to Sarah (quick not because of my lack of enthusiasm, but due to a current shortage of elaboration on my answer), I have not gotten the chance to speak with Dawkins as of today, though my mentor is a close friend of his and has promised me to have a get-together anytime I prefer. However, to be completely honest, here also reside the famous theoretical ecologist Lord Robert May and the much accomplished members of group dynamics research team. In comparison with Dawkins whom (with no discourtesy to you Sarah) mainly achieved success (and riches) through popular science writings and have done little research of his own, I much favor the former.
Well, seems like I have written more than I intended once again. Hopefully such dilettantish analyses may prove to be some value after all.
Best wishes, yun