If you are planning to write a Curriculum Vitae resume any time soon, read this first.

Tip #5: Avoid Wank Words

Wank Words are words that inflate your perceived importance (e.g. using “architected” rather than “designed”), or words that have simply become synonyms, such as “Rational UML Process”, for the so-called work done by people who sit on their asses and don’t know how to code anymore.

Wank Words are worse than just devoid of content; they’re active indicators of total inactivity. Resume screeners either delete Wank Words or replace them with the word “wank” (e.g., “Certified Wank Master”), which makes the resume a lot easier to scan.

“Advocate” is a common wank word, when it refers to a title or position. If it’s a verb then it’s just a weasel word, but if you think it’s your title, then you’ve inflated yourself into Wanker territory. Either way, if you’re walking around advocating stuff, it means you’re not working. Also, it means nobody listens to you, because if you possessed actual leadership, people would just do what you recommended and then you wouldn’t need advocate it anymore. So “advocate” just means “wanker”.
[...]

Hence, many wank-filled resumes wind up looking, after the screeners have marked them up a bit, like this: “Senior wanker wanking for the Wank-Wank Institute of Wankology on the wank wank wank project during which I wanked successfully with seven other wanky wankers.”

In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’

Stephen Jay Gould

The New York Times picked up the torch that Richard and I were carrying on Friday:

Some experts on science education also point to the typical sequence of high school science instruction: biology, chemistry and then physics. It would make more sense in reverse, these people say, because the principles of physics underlie chemistry, which is crucial for an understanding of biology.

Perhaps the leading champion of this “physics first” approach is Leon M. Lederman, a particle physicist, Nobel laureate and former director of Fermilab whose focus lately has been on improving science and math education. He said the current biology-chemistry-physics sequence dates from the late 19th century, when “we didn’t know enough” and biology was considered a “descriptive” subject.

In fact, Dr. Lederman said, “biology is the most complicated of all subjects, and it is based on chemistry and physics.” And, he added, “there is nothing in chemistry, no fact of chemistry or process of chemistry that if you ask ‘Why does this happen?’ you don’t go back to physics.”

It’s interesting that biology was chosen as first because it is “descriptive” (and therefore, presumably, easier). Maybe that’s why they do Earth Sciences first at Bret Harte? Maybe it makes it more interesting for people who don’t like science?

Anyway, Richard and I are firmly in the physics first camp. You can’t understand the others properly without it and - for a kids who wants to know how things work - it’s by far the most interesting.