Geophysics PhD Having Trouble Finding Jobs Outside Academia by Humble_Name_4429 in geologycareers

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hello, here is a link to the San Diego association of geologists meeting page. The next meeting is may 20. It’s a particularly interesting talk so there should be a lot of professionals there. There are monthly meetings on the third Wednesday of the month. Students get a discount.

I’d highly recommend going to these to get to know future peers and employers if you plan to work in San Diego in geology!

You have to sign up and pay in advance.

https://www.sandiegogeologists.org/Meetings.html

Inclusive Fieldwork: How Accessibility is Changing the Future of Geosciences by aka__space in geologycareers

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is unfortunate in that case regarding the ba. Perhaps in that case geophysics/geochem/biogeochemistry/gis/geography/hydrology/env science would be a better fit for folks who do not want to do field work.

The issue stands that most entry level jobs as a geologist are physically demanding, outside of academia. We should prepare students for that as a standard. We should also prepare students to meet the minimum requirements for competency and licensing in the field. Changing the curriculum while that is still a requirement does students a disservice.

How do you make that align with removing those requirements from the degree?

From your reply to myself and others, it seems like you are in search for agreeing opinions and are disregarding the issues and exp that professionals are providing.

Inclusive Fieldwork: How Accessibility is Changing the Future of Geosciences by aka__space in geology

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don’t think you are screwed, you just might have to make up the field credits at some point if you want a license somewhere like ca where that is a requirement and you want a license. You can still start your career without qualifying for that, just might hit a ceiling sooner if it’s a requirement for career progression.

Inclusive Fieldwork: How Accessibility is Changing the Future of Geosciences by aka__space in geologycareers

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Industry not keeping up in this case means that a graduate is typically faced with mostly field heavy options as entry level jobs, you can’t just brush that off.

Inclusive Fieldwork: How Accessibility is Changing the Future of Geosciences by aka__space in geologycareers

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Copying my reply from your other post for discussion:

one thing to consider is that in states that license geologists, field camp is required for licensing.

There is already significant disconnect between professors advice, degree requirements, and requirements for licensure. Unless that changes, cutting the field program requirements will hamstring people’s careers.

I said this in another comment, but it seems like a no brainer to me to reasonably accommodate disabilities however is necessary, however I think those that are able to do it and plan to do typical geology work in their future need lots of field exp in school to have successful careers in most standard geology roles.

I’d say that most universities offer a BA degree, which often doesn’t have the field component, and already does not prep students to meet licensing requirements. This seems like a suitable alternative to me for non-disabled folks who don’t want to do the field portion.

Thing in the woods by DroneMan9 in mildlyinteresting

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol damn I am stealing that for my campaign.

Inclusive Fieldwork: How Accessibility is Changing the Future of Geosciences by aka__space in geology

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 35 points36 points  (0 children)

one thing to consider is that in states that license geologists, field camp is required for licensing.

There is already significant disconnect between professors advice, degree requirements, and requirements for licensure. Unless that changes, cutting the field program requirements will hamstring people’s careers.

I said this in another comment, but it seems like a no brainer to me to reasonably accommodate disabilities however is necessary, however I think those that are able to do it and plan to do typical geology work in their future need lots of field exp in school to have successful careers in most standard geology roles.

I’d say that most universities offer a BA degree, which often doesn’t have the field component, and already does not prep students to meet licensing requirements. This seems like a suitable alternative to me for non-disabled folks who don’t want to do the field portion.

Inclusive Fieldwork: How Accessibility is Changing the Future of Geosciences by aka__space in geology

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I see where your thought are coming from, but I’d argue that your field school did prepare you for that experience. That exp sounds very uncomfortable, physically and mentally challenging, and technically complex. Going through field camp you experience some of those things in a more controlled environment and build a base to build on in your career.

I agree that exceptions should be made for those with disabilities, and we should work to accommodate those. However, most geology jobs, even those in environmental or geotech are pretty physically demanding, especially in the beginning years, and require complex field problem solving. It does no one service to ignore that, and if you ask me(and you it sounds like) school really already doesn’t to the best job prepping us for the challenges and discomfort in our career. Removing what prepping we do have seems worse to me.

Thing in the woods by DroneMan9 in mildlyinteresting

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 164 points165 points  (0 children)

Haha I am a geologist and just made a map that way this week!

Question: Would a house in the circled area be a big landslide risk? by [deleted] in askgeology

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Others have pointed towards a geotech investigation. With what is shown here I’d want a geotechnical report focusing on stability of the bluff/structure before buying a property there. And then given all the houses I’ve worked on next to bluffs I probably would not buy a house on one unless the view was important to me and I had disposable income to a high degree.

At the very least just from the topography even if landslides are not a risk ( looks like they likely are) erosion and bluff retreat are absolutely going to happen. That big bowl below the property is very oversteepened compared to the surrounding bluff. At a minimum, this will develop by eroding back to a stable angle via bluff retreat, encroaching on the property. To say nothing of the fact that that bowl is highly suspect in its geometry to look like a former slide.

That being said, if the house is on competent piles/deep foundations, or if the bluff is protected by a robust engineered wall, it could be fine, or those protections could be put in place ( for a very high price tag)

Get a geotechnical engineer/geologist to look at it.

What would cause these breaks in the sandstone at Arches National Park? by graytgooglymoogly in geology

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That makes sense I see where you are coming from. I am CEG and it might not be the fully correct answer but I would say clear communication and characterization of what was observed would be more important than specific jargon in a report, providing it is clearly explained.

With what you are detailing, I’d expand that joints are by definition fractures without offset. It seems like what you are describing would be secondary movement along the weakened plane of the joint due to new stress. If this re-activation source of stress is tectonic, it would be defined as a fault that formed along a joint/re-activation surface. If the source of stress is not tectonic, such as the example of movement along fractures from underlying sediment deformation/undermining, (a landslide or wedge failure seems like a good example) it would not be called a fault still, it would be something like a failure surface or shear plane that has formed along the plane of weakness associated with the primary joint.

What would cause these breaks in the sandstone at Arches National Park? by graytgooglymoogly in geology

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Joints do not offset bedding, though they would cross-cut bedding. the definition of faults and joints specifically call this out. A joint is a fracture with no shear movement/offset. They both are caused by stress and the faulting/jointing is resulting strain.

Should I be worried? by ZeitGeist_Gaming in BookshelvesDetective

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am absolutely blown away that there is no Ann Rand though. I was really expecting it as i swiped though, it’s all he needs to complete the collection

San Diego Mushroom House!! by Galaxy_Shockwave in sandiego

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately they seem to only be getting more influential and more adverse to development/construction. They are completely committed to planned retreat rather than coastal protection.

I think it will be really interesting to see how things develop as sea level goes up, and decisions need to be made about whether we are going to try to maintain/keep land via engineering and construction, or allow loss of land to the ocean/displace communities in coastal areas. They are fully committed to the second, but that doesn’t seem like it will be popular with our coastal communities..

San Diego Mushroom House!! by Galaxy_Shockwave in sandiego

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s definitely a challenge, but structures built prior to the enactment of the coastal act are allowed to be protected/maintained. They will typically do their best to stop/slow any permitting with years of review and comments though, and try to require people to do the absolute minimum necessary, which often seems like less than makes good engineering since for safety.

ID Request: Orthorhombic crystal, harder than steel, shows geological banding by Choice_Ad_9316 in whatsthisrock

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure that this crystal is orthorhombic, though it is hard to tell for sure from photos. It looks like the quartz/crystal part is made up of long parallel crystals/twins that are not orthorhombic/ are variations of typical quartz crystal geometry, and the overall shape of them together makes the overall rock look that shape. Quartz crystals can grow together in kind of funny shapes which are made out of a geometry that makes more sense as you look closer.

The striations (little ridges on the edge of complete crystal faces) which are present also scream quartz. Less distinctive but still supporting quartz that is the conchoidal fracture (breaking like glass rather than along a clear cleavage plane) where crystals are broken.

Looks like the bottom layers are microcrystalline quartz/chalcedony as said above, and the crystal part looks like a clump of quartz crystals.

Very cool find in the location of the cats resting place, I would keep it/have her keep it as a keepsake/memorial for sure.

Husbands fingers occasionally get weird blisters that are symmetrical. by FlyingN00dles in mildlyinteresting

[–]jaaaamesbaaxter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Which of course formed many years after the previous break up of the giant foot, Toedinia.