An Aspiring Scientist’s Frustration with Modern-Day Academia (2013)(crypto.junod.info)
crypto.junod.info
An Aspiring Scientist’s Frustration with Modern-Day Academia (2013)
http://crypto.junod.info/2013/09/09/an-aspiring-scientists-frustration-with-modern-day-academia-a-resignation/
103 comments
Companies live or die by the value that they create for their customers. Films win or lose by the entertainment they provide. Musicians get rich or stay poor by the number of fans who enjoy their music etc. The post is saying that people in academia (Except those at the top institutions) are not judged by the value that they create for science and that this gets in the way of good science in many institutions. Science is not the kind of market where the most beneficial outcomes are automatically selected and the author is upset with how incentives and low odds of success are aligned to make his life in science anxious and unfulfilling. One can scold the author for complaining or one can take him seriously on his points about how society should better benefit from the money it spends on science.
Your examples are about popularity, whereas with science you switch to value. These are far from equivalent. Films win or lose by the entertainment they provide, but do the best ones win? No, rather the ones that can convince the most people to watch them win. It's quite possible that an unpopular movie would have provided a lot more entertainment if more people had gone to see it, but since they didn't, it loses. Likewise with music: just because some musician attracted a lot of fans doesn't mean those fans wouldn't enjoy some obscure musician more, they just never really made the choice.
I think it's useful to ask whether science is actually different in this respect, or whether this is merely an aspect of a universal problem.
I think it's useful to ask whether science is actually different in this respect, or whether this is merely an aspect of a universal problem.
I think you miss the pint slightly. Tons of musicians make great music, but the supply of good music is much higher than the market for listening can absorb. I have friend sin bands that play great music. They will never make it big because they're in such a crowded field only dumb luck or sheer brilliance will make them be picked up by the market.
So the point is that - even if people in academia are producing brilliant, applicable, great research, the truth is that academia produces more supply,than the market can bear. In such a case, it's like great musicians - most will have to be overlooked and only a tiny few will make a difference, either through brilliance, dumb luck or evil plotting.
So the point is that - even if people in academia are producing brilliant, applicable, great research, the truth is that academia produces more supply,than the market can bear. In such a case, it's like great musicians - most will have to be overlooked and only a tiny few will make a difference, either through brilliance, dumb luck or evil plotting.
>The post is saying that people in academia (Except those at the top institutions) are not judged by the value that they create for science and that this gets in the way of good science in many institutions.
That's because the "value they create for science" is far too diffuse for anyone to care. They need to bring in grant money, something people do care about, or find something else to do.
That's because the "value they create for science" is far too diffuse for anyone to care. They need to bring in grant money, something people do care about, or find something else to do.
> really the only way forward that doesn't result in eternal loss of control of your efforts to sociopaths with no interest in your happiness or society's well-being is to blaze your own path forward
That is exactly why a lot of academics chose the academic career in the first place. There was a lot more freedom to pick your own problem and work on it than you'd enjoy in the average corporate job. There still is, for the most part. But if that advantage is eroding, it's worth talking about.
That is exactly why a lot of academics chose the academic career in the first place. There was a lot more freedom to pick your own problem and work on it than you'd enjoy in the average corporate job. There still is, for the most part. But if that advantage is eroding, it's worth talking about.
It's naive to expect that just because you choose academia, that you have a reasonable expectation to gain your freedom without a lot of path-blazing. It was naive before and it's definitely naive now. Just look at the numbers. How many post-docs vs how many tenured professors?
If you looked at the numbers and decided to try it anyway, you only have yourself to blame if you fail after throwing away years of your life. You didn't blaze a path, you didn't do things substantially different than your forebears.
If you naively didn't look at the numbers and kept going out of blind faith, then sorry, you wasted your twenties and got only hard experience to show for it. Don't feel too bad, 90% of your academic peers are doing the same thing. I wasted my twenties too doing stupid things. Probably most of us did. Just don't pass your thirties the same way and you should be fine.
If you looked at the numbers and decided to try it anyway, you only have yourself to blame if you fail after throwing away years of your life. You didn't blaze a path, you didn't do things substantially different than your forebears.
If you naively didn't look at the numbers and kept going out of blind faith, then sorry, you wasted your twenties and got only hard experience to show for it. Don't feel too bad, 90% of your academic peers are doing the same thing. I wasted my twenties too doing stupid things. Probably most of us did. Just don't pass your thirties the same way and you should be fine.
Not everyone is an entrepreneur. We shouldn't predicate scientific progress on the ability of our most brilliant minds to also be brilliant entrepreneurs. It would be a huge disservice to mankind. Some people know how to look at an atom and unlock the universe. How do we change the system to let them do that?
It may be naive today but it wasn't a generation ago, when the numbers were more favorable to a young PhD. Something has changed, which is why people write articles to say, "Hey, stuff's changed!"
In the 1950s-1960s, the university system was expanding, in part due to the post-WWII GI Bill. Anyone with a PhD was pretty much guaranteed a decent job.
A pyramid scheme works well when the pyramid is expanding. It doesn't work so well when the tip of the pyramid is shrinking.
If EACH tenured professor has 1 graduate student per 3-5 years, that's nowhere close to the rate at which new tenure track jobs open up. There are some private sector jobs for Math PhDs, but even those have an oversupply.
A pyramid scheme works well when the pyramid is expanding. It doesn't work so well when the tip of the pyramid is shrinking.
If EACH tenured professor has 1 graduate student per 3-5 years, that's nowhere close to the rate at which new tenure track jobs open up. There are some private sector jobs for Math PhDs, but even those have an oversupply.
It was still naive then. Students should have seen the huge numbers pouring in. They should have done the soul-searching then. You have to keep your head up and nose to the wind if you want any success at all in this world. It's always been that way, you're naive if you believe an institution can engineer success for you. No matter how many of your peers believe the same way you do.
>The ones that succeed learn how to increase the demand for the services they want to provide. The ones that don't bitch about how unfair everything is.
Eh, given the oversupply in academia, it really isn't fair to compare your situation to it. We're talking about orders of magnitude in the disparity between supply and demand in academe vs. the usual competition like in SV, I'd say.
Of course they'll face it elsewhere, the sociopaths who will control their lives. As someone said below, the disappointment is that academia is just like the rest of the world.Still, I think they need to be told it by articles like the linked so more fresh college grads won't go down that path.
Eh, given the oversupply in academia, it really isn't fair to compare your situation to it. We're talking about orders of magnitude in the disparity between supply and demand in academe vs. the usual competition like in SV, I'd say.
Of course they'll face it elsewhere, the sociopaths who will control their lives. As someone said below, the disappointment is that academia is just like the rest of the world.Still, I think they need to be told it by articles like the linked so more fresh college grads won't go down that path.
[deleted](1)
This part gets best at why I jumped ship last year, at the end of my math postdoc:
"(4) Academia: Where Originality Will Hurt You "The good, healthy mentality would naturally be to work on research that we believe is important. Unfortunately, most such research is challenging and difficult to publish, and the current publish-or-perish system makes it difficult to put bread on the table while working on problems that require at least ten years of labor before you can report even the most preliminary results. [...] "Ideally, the academic system would encourage those people who are already well established and trusted to pursue these challenges, and I’m sure that some already do. However, I cannot help but get the impression that the majority of us are avoiding the real issues and pursuing minor, easy problems that we know can be solved and published. The result is a gigantic literature full of marginal/repetitive contributions. This, however, is not necessarily a bad thing if it’s a good CV that you’re after."
I came away with the impression that there are a few people given extremely wide latitude to work (or not) on problems of real significance, who had generally been granted 'rock star' status by the math community in one way or another. It's a 1% whose academic freedoms serves as a motivation for the other 99%, who will try to write a bulk of irrelevant papers while dealing with a massive teaching load. A job in industry ultimately felt like it might provide more freedom in the long run than the academic track, with less danger of ending up in a adjunct teaching gig in Wichita.
"(4) Academia: Where Originality Will Hurt You "The good, healthy mentality would naturally be to work on research that we believe is important. Unfortunately, most such research is challenging and difficult to publish, and the current publish-or-perish system makes it difficult to put bread on the table while working on problems that require at least ten years of labor before you can report even the most preliminary results. [...] "Ideally, the academic system would encourage those people who are already well established and trusted to pursue these challenges, and I’m sure that some already do. However, I cannot help but get the impression that the majority of us are avoiding the real issues and pursuing minor, easy problems that we know can be solved and published. The result is a gigantic literature full of marginal/repetitive contributions. This, however, is not necessarily a bad thing if it’s a good CV that you’re after."
I came away with the impression that there are a few people given extremely wide latitude to work (or not) on problems of real significance, who had generally been granted 'rock star' status by the math community in one way or another. It's a 1% whose academic freedoms serves as a motivation for the other 99%, who will try to write a bulk of irrelevant papers while dealing with a massive teaching load. A job in industry ultimately felt like it might provide more freedom in the long run than the academic track, with less danger of ending up in a adjunct teaching gig in Wichita.
>A job in industry ultimately felt like it might provide more freedom in the long run than the academic track [...]
Does having a full-time industry job allow you to seriously pursue your own research interests on the side?
For mathematics research especially, why don't more research-oriented mathematicians pursue this dual path? I understand part-time research necessarily implies a slower publication rate, but since you're already eschewing this anyway, are there any other drawbacks? Two that spring to mind are a restriction to travel to mathematics conferences and socializing with mathematicians during the day -- are these big show stoppers?
Does having a full-time industry job allow you to seriously pursue your own research interests on the side?
For mathematics research especially, why don't more research-oriented mathematicians pursue this dual path? I understand part-time research necessarily implies a slower publication rate, but since you're already eschewing this anyway, are there any other drawbacks? Two that spring to mind are a restriction to travel to mathematics conferences and socializing with mathematicians during the day -- are these big show stoppers?
> why don't more research-oriented mathematicians pursue this dual path?
I think there are two non exclusive ways of doing research successfully. Intense work and collaboration (in particular supervision of students).
PhD students and postdoc fall in the first category. They work full time on their research and do little else.
On the other hand, most successful experienced researchers are busy writing grant proposals, teaching, attending various committees. There's not enough time left to do meaningful research by themselves (plus getting older doesn't help to stay sharp and passionate), so they end up supervising students that to the bulk of the research.
I think someone that would try to do research on its spare time won't have enough time to devote to it (unlike a phd student), and won't be able to supervise students (unlike a professor).
I think there are two non exclusive ways of doing research successfully. Intense work and collaboration (in particular supervision of students).
PhD students and postdoc fall in the first category. They work full time on their research and do little else.
On the other hand, most successful experienced researchers are busy writing grant proposals, teaching, attending various committees. There's not enough time left to do meaningful research by themselves (plus getting older doesn't help to stay sharp and passionate), so they end up supervising students that to the bulk of the research.
I think someone that would try to do research on its spare time won't have enough time to devote to it (unlike a phd student), and won't be able to supervise students (unlike a professor).
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought mathematics was one of the few areas of study where one could noodle away on a problem or area with little in the way of supporting or expensive infrastructure.
As most on this site can probably attest to, one of the biggest issues with part-time/hobby/side projects is motivation and discipline. That problem seems to be already partially solved by the freedom to pick an area of mathematics one is already interested in.
Not having enough time to devote to a problem part-time doesn't seem like a large problem if somebody wants to work on problems of their own choosing as per the OP. Thus, my confusion.
I can definitely see that collaboration is a tougher nut to crack unless most participation starts shifting to evening group meetings.
As most on this site can probably attest to, one of the biggest issues with part-time/hobby/side projects is motivation and discipline. That problem seems to be already partially solved by the freedom to pick an area of mathematics one is already interested in.
Not having enough time to devote to a problem part-time doesn't seem like a large problem if somebody wants to work on problems of their own choosing as per the OP. Thus, my confusion.
I can definitely see that collaboration is a tougher nut to crack unless most participation starts shifting to evening group meetings.
> ...mathematics was one of the few areas of study where one could noodle away ... with little ... infrastructure.
The New Yorker had an interesting article about Yitang Zhang and his discovery concerning bounded primes. The discovery itself is interesting for the mathematics involved, but of wider interest is that up until this discovery, he was a relative unknown in the mathematical establishment.
If it were simply a question of motivation and discipline to have math as a hobby, we would expect discoveries from unknown individuals more frequently, but, alas, that's not true, which is what makes this story precious.
It stems from the fact, among other things, that math isn't like programming. It's not like deciding, one day, that you want to write your own operating system, and then the small matter of coding it up. Math requires* those leaps of intuition that come to you after banging your head against the same problem for months. Most employers would start to question a developer's continued employment if it took them five months to resolve a single ticket.
*http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/02/pursuit-beauty
The New Yorker had an interesting article about Yitang Zhang and his discovery concerning bounded primes. The discovery itself is interesting for the mathematics involved, but of wider interest is that up until this discovery, he was a relative unknown in the mathematical establishment.
If it were simply a question of motivation and discipline to have math as a hobby, we would expect discoveries from unknown individuals more frequently, but, alas, that's not true, which is what makes this story precious.
It stems from the fact, among other things, that math isn't like programming. It's not like deciding, one day, that you want to write your own operating system, and then the small matter of coding it up. Math requires* those leaps of intuition that come to you after banging your head against the same problem for months. Most employers would start to question a developer's continued employment if it took them five months to resolve a single ticket.
*http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/02/pursuit-beauty
You can, but...
Some do actually use supercomputers to do mathematics.
Most however, thrive in an actual academic environment including spending a lot of time interacting with other mathematicians and going to conferences. There's a big difference between living in an academic environment and spending your whole life thinking about math and being around people who do the same... and working a 9-5 and doing a little math on the side. Not to say it isn't possible, but most reasonable jobs don't leave much left over mental energy for doing maths.
Some do actually use supercomputers to do mathematics.
Most however, thrive in an actual academic environment including spending a lot of time interacting with other mathematicians and going to conferences. There's a big difference between living in an academic environment and spending your whole life thinking about math and being around people who do the same... and working a 9-5 and doing a little math on the side. Not to say it isn't possible, but most reasonable jobs don't leave much left over mental energy for doing maths.
Yeah, and it's hard to get exposure to areas that might be fertile for inquiry if you aren't spending time with other people who are working on mathematics. It's a social networking effect, in the same way that you pick up programming tricks and get exposure to new frameworks/languages/techniques by spending time with other developers.
I'm sure there is a sizable number of "amateur" mathematicians who work on problems in their free time, but it is hard to know what to work on and where to look.
I'm sure there is a sizable number of "amateur" mathematicians who work on problems in their free time, but it is hard to know what to work on and where to look.
I've actually been playing with the idea of a "monastery" for mathematicians; we could get a group of mathematicians together to live simply and cheaply somewhere, subsisting on a small amount of savings and freeing up time to study and solve problems.
I thought about something similar, but more like a "monastery-style research institute" where people, with some amount of provable expertise, regardless of credentials or previous publications, would be able to check-in for pre-determined period of time and just do "open ended research" (the kind of things no sane university or corporation would ever pay for...) and have living expenses plus other basic needs provided, and spared from having to waste energy in the meaningless and draining "dance" we call "social life", for with the sole condition that their research is "open source" and that they are actually staying there working, not just using it as a free/cheap rent.
The "monastery" could also be run as a business, having a for-profit section developing products based on the ideas produced inside. Something like the members of the monastery signing an agreement that they are ok with their results being published with one year delay, time that would give an edge to the monastery over any competitors that would also want to develop products based on them - think of it like a "research monastery self-financed by coupling with a sort of startup incubator" (with some really intransigent and incorruptible people working to keep the two camps of people apart and to stop the "business idea developers" from exploiting the "monks").
And for research fields that require some expensive equipment, like bio-medical research, the "monastery" may make the "monks" sign contracts giving the patents and other right to their discoveries to the monastery, in exchange for having access to a lab where they can work on anything they want. It's not that utopic since you can a pretty usable top notch molecular biology lab plus an animal experiments facility for under $1M (probably not in the US because you have too many regulations and stuff...) if you find alternative channels of buying equipment of user other "hacks" that regular research institutes can't use...
But it's the kind of idea that it's hard to convince other people it would make sense... so for now I'll keep it on my list of to-dos for after I get filthy rich so I can finance this myself.
The "monastery" could also be run as a business, having a for-profit section developing products based on the ideas produced inside. Something like the members of the monastery signing an agreement that they are ok with their results being published with one year delay, time that would give an edge to the monastery over any competitors that would also want to develop products based on them - think of it like a "research monastery self-financed by coupling with a sort of startup incubator" (with some really intransigent and incorruptible people working to keep the two camps of people apart and to stop the "business idea developers" from exploiting the "monks").
And for research fields that require some expensive equipment, like bio-medical research, the "monastery" may make the "monks" sign contracts giving the patents and other right to their discoveries to the monastery, in exchange for having access to a lab where they can work on anything they want. It's not that utopic since you can a pretty usable top notch molecular biology lab plus an animal experiments facility for under $1M (probably not in the US because you have too many regulations and stuff...) if you find alternative channels of buying equipment of user other "hacks" that regular research institutes can't use...
But it's the kind of idea that it's hard to convince other people it would make sense... so for now I'll keep it on my list of to-dos for after I get filthy rich so I can finance this myself.
That sounds a great deal like what Universities are supposed to be. (Or did I miss the funny?)
Well, go back in time a thousand years and that would be a good description of why universities were chartered (with the exception that the "important topics" of the day were mostly theology, philosophy, and medicine -- the distinction is an anachronism, come to think of it).
Like the Institute for Advanced Study?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Advanced_Study
On the other hand, Richard Hamming thinks this model won't work:
> The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn't the way things go. So that is another reason why you find that when you get early recognition it seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren't good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards.
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Advanced_Study
On the other hand, Richard Hamming thinks this model won't work:
> The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn't the way things go. So that is another reason why you find that when you get early recognition it seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren't good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards.
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html
Feynman on the IAS
http://www.pitt.edu/~druzdzel/feynman.html
http://www.pitt.edu/~druzdzel/feynman.html
You could take in a few select students as well. Then maybe award them a certificate of completion (a "degree", if you will). In exchange, they would maybe make a small contribution towards the running costs.
I've read and noticed some interesting things since I left graduate school. I just make them a blog post, rather than going through the hassle of trying to get it published in a major academic research publication. Since I'm not pursing an academic career, does it matter if 100 people read the post on my blog, or 5 people read it in some journal?
An HN comment with +20 karma was probably read more times than most research papers in journals!
An HN comment with +20 karma was probably read more times than most research papers in journals!
Yes, but for reasons I still don't understand, the prestige of the publisher correlates with the recognition it gets. Even if more people read your blog post of your great idea, it's unlikely to get cited or recognized, and might even be entirely ignored by academics.
Even outside academics this is true. A great essay, posted as a comment on HN or reddit, is going to be much less circulated than the same essay posted on a blog. E.g. I'll see a good essay on someone's blog and see that it's posted to 12 different subreddits and HN. If I say a great essay as a comment, even if it's of the same quality, I guarantee it will not be posted anywhere else.
Even outside academics this is true. A great essay, posted as a comment on HN or reddit, is going to be much less circulated than the same essay posted on a blog. E.g. I'll see a good essay on someone's blog and see that it's posted to 12 different subreddits and HN. If I say a great essay as a comment, even if it's of the same quality, I guarantee it will not be posted anywhere else.
I would consider signing up. The problem is finding a place, funding, and someone to administrate it.
You share this idea with Neal Stephenson, who wrote it up and made a >1000p book about it.
www.amazon.com/Anathem-Neal-Stephenson/dp/006147410X/
www.amazon.com/Anathem-Neal-Stephenson/dp/006147410X/
Move to a cheap part of the county and apply for unemployment benefit. Problem solved.
Does having a full-time industry job allow you to seriously pursue your own research interests on the side?
You lose maybe 6-12 hours to a job--assuming you never work on research or knowledge expansion during work hours, which is unlikely--but then you don't have to have that stuff hanging over your head.
Bills are getting paid, equipment can be purchased (if you need it), and your social life is happier. So, I think that research can absolutely be pursued outside of academia.
You lose maybe 6-12 hours to a job--assuming you never work on research or knowledge expansion during work hours, which is unlikely--but then you don't have to have that stuff hanging over your head.
Bills are getting paid, equipment can be purchased (if you need it), and your social life is happier. So, I think that research can absolutely be pursued outside of academia.
[deleted]
For mathematics research especially, why don't more research-oriented mathematicians pursue this dual path?
Because it's much much harder to get published when you aren't immediately associated with a university. People just assume "crank".
Because it's much much harder to get published when you aren't immediately associated with a university. People just assume "crank".
For my part, I was starting to consider questions of what my area of mathematics might have interesting things to say about machine learning. The industry job I landed in has me doing applied ML, and working through many of the subtleties of some interesting algorithms. As such, the research isn't necessarily so far off from the industry job, though the need for a small Big-O constrains things a bit.
right, Einstein's part-time research is a good example
isn't this essentially what einstein did before he made it big? at the patent office, etc.
Aubrey De Grey discusses the articles points on why he left academia in yesterday's GRE podcast http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeCpHugyI80
Knuth took a decade off because he wanted his papers to look better. (I know this is glib, typesetting is fabulously complicated. But he did get to spend a decade making his papers look nicer.)
"I sometimes find it both funny and frightening that the majority
of the world’s academic research is actually being done by people
like me, who don’t even have a PhD degree. Many advisors, whom you
would expect to truly be pushing science forward with their decades
of experience, do surprisingly little and only appear to manage the
PhD students, who slave away on papers that their advisors then put
their names on as a sort of “fee” for having taken the time to read
the document..."
It appears that the author's definition of "true science" is akin to knowledge-that-needn't-be-effectively-communicated-to-anyone, which, in my estimation, is not science at all.
>It appears that the author's definition of "true science" is akin to knowledge-that-needn't-be-effectively-communicated-to-anyone
How did you get that from "Advisors shouldn't treat advisees like shit and then take an unfair amount of credit for their work."?
How did you get that from "Advisors shouldn't treat advisees like shit and then take an unfair amount of credit for their work."?
Perhaps the utter discounting of the things that keep the labs going, the grad students funded, and generally anything other than "I did the grunt work" as not real science.
And this speaking as someone who is one of the people doing most of the coding/writing for our projects. Senior faculty enabling me to do my job is a contribution.
And this speaking as someone who is one of the people doing most of the coding/writing for our projects. Senior faculty enabling me to do my job is a contribution.
[deleted]
A lot of labs are very much like this... with the actual science work getting done by the post-grads.
What the author doesn't realise that while the lab heads might not be doing a lot of science on a day to day basis - most are overloaded with a bunch of other stuff that is forced upon them... endless committee meetings, grant writing, teaching and teaching administration etc...
What the author doesn't realise that while the lab heads might not be doing a lot of science on a day to day basis - most are overloaded with a bunch of other stuff that is forced upon them... endless committee meetings, grant writing, teaching and teaching administration etc...
Even if the author realizes that, it doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is mostly admin and management, not science.
I left academia--more-or-less--after doing several post-docs and taking a hard look at an employment landscape where colleagues who were at least as good as me were taking offers from second- or third-teir institutions because that was all that was available. I knew some of them were profoundly lonely and struggling in those positions, outside of the charmed circle of the top teir they had comfortably inhabited for so long.
Beyond that, there was the realization that unlike the profs who trained my generation, people my age pursuing tenure were rarely getting into the lab. They couldn't afford to. They had to stay relentlessly on the track of paper and grant generation, as well as committee work, if they wanted to succeed.
I would be a really bad fit in that job. I got into science because I love the hands-on act of "disturbing the universe", in Freeman Dyson's memorable phrase, and even in the improbable event that I landed a tenure-track job (improbable in part because as a post-doc I tended to work on problems that interested me, rather than ones that would lead to lots of publications) I would end up spending most of my time doing stuff I wasn't very good at and didn't much enjoy.
It's one thing to say that "every job has a certain amount of work involved" (there are always less appealing things you have to do in the name of the stuff you enjoy) but when a job is mostly stuff you aren't suited for, it's not a good idea to pursue it.
This is the fundamental problem of modern academia: researchers are getting shunted into managers and administrators as soon as they get on tenure track. While the age they make the transition to tenure track is going up, the length of active research careers is going down. Hands-on research scientists who are active over the full length of their career are almost always in some kind of permanent research associate position, free from the vagaries of tenure and promotion. They are the people most of us who go into the sciences want to be, but the positions available for them are few and far between.
We need serious, genuine academic reform so that there are more positions available for career scientists who do science, rather than careerists who transition to managers and administrators the moment they become assistant professors.
I left academia--more-or-less--after doing several post-docs and taking a hard look at an employment landscape where colleagues who were at least as good as me were taking offers from second- or third-teir institutions because that was all that was available. I knew some of them were profoundly lonely and struggling in those positions, outside of the charmed circle of the top teir they had comfortably inhabited for so long.
Beyond that, there was the realization that unlike the profs who trained my generation, people my age pursuing tenure were rarely getting into the lab. They couldn't afford to. They had to stay relentlessly on the track of paper and grant generation, as well as committee work, if they wanted to succeed.
I would be a really bad fit in that job. I got into science because I love the hands-on act of "disturbing the universe", in Freeman Dyson's memorable phrase, and even in the improbable event that I landed a tenure-track job (improbable in part because as a post-doc I tended to work on problems that interested me, rather than ones that would lead to lots of publications) I would end up spending most of my time doing stuff I wasn't very good at and didn't much enjoy.
It's one thing to say that "every job has a certain amount of work involved" (there are always less appealing things you have to do in the name of the stuff you enjoy) but when a job is mostly stuff you aren't suited for, it's not a good idea to pursue it.
This is the fundamental problem of modern academia: researchers are getting shunted into managers and administrators as soon as they get on tenure track. While the age they make the transition to tenure track is going up, the length of active research careers is going down. Hands-on research scientists who are active over the full length of their career are almost always in some kind of permanent research associate position, free from the vagaries of tenure and promotion. They are the people most of us who go into the sciences want to be, but the positions available for them are few and far between.
We need serious, genuine academic reform so that there are more positions available for career scientists who do science, rather than careerists who transition to managers and administrators the moment they become assistant professors.
> I left academia--more-or-less--after doing several post-docs and taking a hard look at an employment landscape where colleagues who were at least as good as me were taking offers from second- or third-teir institutions because that was all that was available. I knew some of them were profoundly lonely and struggling in those positions, outside of the charmed circle of the top teir they had comfortably inhabited for so long.
Honest question, if your colleagues were "top tier" researchers, and they ended up at "second tier" schools, does that not somehow imply that those "second tier" institutions are more prestigious than their presumed "second tier" status? They obviously are able to recruit quality.
I guess the real question that I'm trying to ask is why the obsession in academia (and HN) with segmenting institutions into "tiers"? It just seems odd and contradictory that academia would be so bent on self-imposing a caste system.
Honest question, if your colleagues were "top tier" researchers, and they ended up at "second tier" schools, does that not somehow imply that those "second tier" institutions are more prestigious than their presumed "second tier" status? They obviously are able to recruit quality.
I guess the real question that I'm trying to ask is why the obsession in academia (and HN) with segmenting institutions into "tiers"? It just seems odd and contradictory that academia would be so bent on self-imposing a caste system.
It's a funnel. You can have many top tier researchers working as postdocs for top tier labs, but when it comes time to start your own lab there aren't many openings in top tier institutes. IE over the course of an academic lifetime, most principal investigators will train 10s of doctoral and postdoctoral researchers.
This captures exactly the reason I am thinking about leaving academia. I got into research because I like doing research, but you can't have a career in research anymore. After completing a PhD, the only way to have a career is to spend all your time writing grant proposals, attending workshops, organizing meetings, cultivating useless collaborations, and promoting yourself. There is no time left for research, and teaching becomes a burden to avoid at all cost. You have to get PhD students and postdocs to do all the work, and take as much credit for their ideas and efforts as you can. Academia has become a dead-end job for people who want to do research.
I myself am worried about this. I have worked my ass off to get into the PhD program where I'm at, but in the end, what does a PhD in CS get me (outside academia) that an MS CS will not?
I think it makes the other people in the room feel less awkward.
I'm often the only person in the room without a PhD when I go see a customer. They usually want me to either fix something 10 minutes ago, prototype something next week, or invent something next month. I do.
There are websites around that list me as having a PhD in my specialty (I just have a four year degree). Most recently, one aerospace organization flat out refused to correct their page because it looks less professional if I'm not listed with a degree I don't have.
As far as advisors taking credit instead of their students... ten years ago I saved the life of an asshole and the conscience of a friend when said friend came to recruit me to be a spotter while he attempted to kill his advisor after he'd published something my friend wrote, under the advisor's name. I talked my friend into merely destroying the prof's car.
I realize that I talk about violence a lot in my posts. It happens, it is part of life, it must be dealt with even in techie or academic circles.
De-escalation sometimes requires causing a small amount of damage in order to prevent much greater damage. It's like felling a few trees to build a firebreak.
I don't give a damn about the advisor, other than he's a human being and has the right to live his wretched life out, but I do know that my friend would've been haunted by his conscience all his life if he actually hurt someone... and haunted by his pride just as long if he didn't exact some form of revenge, because this is what our culture demanded.
I'm often the only person in the room without a PhD when I go see a customer. They usually want me to either fix something 10 minutes ago, prototype something next week, or invent something next month. I do.
There are websites around that list me as having a PhD in my specialty (I just have a four year degree). Most recently, one aerospace organization flat out refused to correct their page because it looks less professional if I'm not listed with a degree I don't have.
As far as advisors taking credit instead of their students... ten years ago I saved the life of an asshole and the conscience of a friend when said friend came to recruit me to be a spotter while he attempted to kill his advisor after he'd published something my friend wrote, under the advisor's name. I talked my friend into merely destroying the prof's car.
I realize that I talk about violence a lot in my posts. It happens, it is part of life, it must be dealt with even in techie or academic circles.
De-escalation sometimes requires causing a small amount of damage in order to prevent much greater damage. It's like felling a few trees to build a firebreak.
I don't give a damn about the advisor, other than he's a human being and has the right to live his wretched life out, but I do know that my friend would've been haunted by his conscience all his life if he actually hurt someone... and haunted by his pride just as long if he didn't exact some form of revenge, because this is what our culture demanded.
Interesting, thanks!
I don't want to kill my advisor (he's a pretty good guy, honest, and generally not a douchebag... in all honesty I have in the past and would in the future have a beer with him ).
It just seems like everyone is a cog everywhere -- in academia, the real world, whatever -- and there is no escape.
That's what really sickens me. There's no room for original ideas unless you found a startup, and then, what, you sell your company to IBM/Google/Microsoft/whoever in a year or two and it's the same damn song and dance.
A PhD isn't a requirement to be a cog -- it doesn't even seem to make you a big cog that drives a lot of other gears and functionality in the clock, going by those I know with one. It seems (from the inside) like a lot of extra effort and stress. So, the letter hit close to home.
I don't want to kill my advisor (he's a pretty good guy, honest, and generally not a douchebag... in all honesty I have in the past and would in the future have a beer with him ).
It just seems like everyone is a cog everywhere -- in academia, the real world, whatever -- and there is no escape.
That's what really sickens me. There's no room for original ideas unless you found a startup, and then, what, you sell your company to IBM/Google/Microsoft/whoever in a year or two and it's the same damn song and dance.
A PhD isn't a requirement to be a cog -- it doesn't even seem to make you a big cog that drives a lot of other gears and functionality in the clock, going by those I know with one. It seems (from the inside) like a lot of extra effort and stress. So, the letter hit close to home.
Fist-bumps when you interview at Google.
:p thanks for that, I definitely needed the laugh. This shit has me wrapped around the axle, and it shouldn't be this important.
Well, it is important. 3 or 4 years of opportunity cost (especially when you are young) can really add up.
Get some internships, see what happens. I dropped out of grad school because an internship turned into a job offer.
Well, I already have two offers... which is mainly why I'm considering not finishing the doctorate and leaving with the MS.
> You have to get PhD students and postdocs to do all the work, and take as much credit for their ideas and efforts as you can.
This has been going on for quite a while.
http://www.astronomycast.com/2015/04/ep-372-the-millikan-oil...
This has been going on for quite a while.
http://www.astronomycast.com/2015/04/ep-372-the-millikan-oil...
[deleted]
Can't all of that, except teaching, be done by a secretary?
> Can't all of that, except teaching, be done by a secretary?
Not really, most of these tasks require some expertise. For exemple, committee meetings could be about recruiting colleagues and assessing their work or selecting papers for a journal or a conference. Grant writing requires expertise too...
Not really, most of these tasks require some expertise. For exemple, committee meetings could be about recruiting colleagues and assessing their work or selecting papers for a journal or a conference. Grant writing requires expertise too...
No, committee meetings, which can involve things like setting the PhD curriculum, or deciding on faculty recruiting or retention, cannot be done by a secretary. No, grant writing, which is plotting the (often multi-million dollar) course for a lab, proposing science that has not yet been done and documenting those methods well enough and concisely enough for a review panel cannot be done by a secretary.
That'd require a secretary with a PhD. Looks more like most of it should not be done. But then, I have no idea how to change it.
Teaching is probably the easiest one to solve. Some kinds of classes should be attributed to teachers, not researchers (those are very different kinds of expertize).
Teaching is probably the easiest one to solve. Some kinds of classes should be attributed to teachers, not researchers (those are very different kinds of expertize).
It is increasingly common for large labs in the life sciences (25+ members) to hire multiple support staff (with PhDs) to help offset this load. This is in addition to positions like Senior Research Scientists (senior postdocs) who often serve as 50% "project managers" and 50% independent postdocs.
I don't know if many scientists and researchers understand how much harder it becomes to do science when you are surrounded by information chaos.
If you have someone tossing the right words at you here and there, and I literally mean like 10 words over 5 years - if those are the right 10 words, then that can mean all the difference between making sense and going crazy. Having a smart teacher point you in some direction that they have a developed intuition for is billions of times more valuable than having what essentially seems like static noise.
Which gets to a more important point about slow progress in research. If you go too fast, it's complete chaos. Languages and data doesn't translate well across large populations quickly, information gets entangled with multiple incorrect definitions and multiple ways of interpreting, entire populations can be wiped of their confidence of the integrity of information and data, left with shrugs and feelings of confusion that has zero inertia behind it.
If you have someone tossing the right words at you here and there, and I literally mean like 10 words over 5 years - if those are the right 10 words, then that can mean all the difference between making sense and going crazy. Having a smart teacher point you in some direction that they have a developed intuition for is billions of times more valuable than having what essentially seems like static noise.
Which gets to a more important point about slow progress in research. If you go too fast, it's complete chaos. Languages and data doesn't translate well across large populations quickly, information gets entangled with multiple incorrect definitions and multiple ways of interpreting, entire populations can be wiped of their confidence of the integrity of information and data, left with shrugs and feelings of confusion that has zero inertia behind it.
In the comments, Lee Smolin says something I agree with:
A final word: where ever you go if you leave science you are likely to face the same fight, because it is in the nature of modern life and modern organizations.
I've thought before that much of the criticism of academia (which I've certainly engaged in) mostly reflects disappointment that it was ultimately not all that different from the rest of the world.
A final word: where ever you go if you leave science you are likely to face the same fight, because it is in the nature of modern life and modern organizations.
I've thought before that much of the criticism of academia (which I've certainly engaged in) mostly reflects disappointment that it was ultimately not all that different from the rest of the world.
My grad school stipend was ~$500 every two weeks pre-tax. I worked like crazy. The football coach made ~250k. I now make over 5 times that.. after taxes.
When I left grad school I found many of it's problems present in the corporate world; except that now, compensation is commiserate with responsibility.
When I left grad school I found many of it's problems present in the corporate world; except that now, compensation is commiserate with responsibility.
Commensurate, not commiserate.
You commiserate (sympathize) with the author's plight. And now your compensation is now commensurate (measurably equal) with your responsibility.
You commiserate (sympathize) with the author's plight. And now your compensation is now commensurate (measurably equal) with your responsibility.
How long did it take you to get your degree, and how many papers did you write to do it?
>I've thought before that much of the criticism of academia (which I've certainly engaged in) mostly reflects disappointment that it was ultimately not all that different from the rest of the world.
I think that is the disappointment. Reference the article:
I often wonder if many people in academia come from insecure childhoods where they were never the strongest or the most popular among their peers, and, having studied more than their peers, are now out for revenge.
This including the author, and hell, including me. I'm going to admit: I was idealistic coming into the system, thinking that it was better that the rest of the world because the point of research was supposed to be research, that I would find people who valued cool ideas and interesting science/math/literature, etc, instead of making a quick buck. So, it isn't any different, honestly, only instead of money, the currency of academe is pride[0].
But, one can't live on pride alone, as much as academics try to convince their students. If one is to sell their soul, at least sell it for real currency instead of academic funny money (citations, papers, commitee positions, pats from higher ups). As another replier mentioned, at least work for assholes who will pay you better and in a career that has better prospects than academia.
One might say that the ideal it strives for, bettering the world and/or understanding it deeply, was supposed to be what one gained in place of losing income. Without that, why should anyone participate in it?
[0] http://100rsns.blogspot.com/2010/10/25-academe-is-built-on-p...
I think that is the disappointment. Reference the article:
I often wonder if many people in academia come from insecure childhoods where they were never the strongest or the most popular among their peers, and, having studied more than their peers, are now out for revenge.
This including the author, and hell, including me. I'm going to admit: I was idealistic coming into the system, thinking that it was better that the rest of the world because the point of research was supposed to be research, that I would find people who valued cool ideas and interesting science/math/literature, etc, instead of making a quick buck. So, it isn't any different, honestly, only instead of money, the currency of academe is pride[0].
But, one can't live on pride alone, as much as academics try to convince their students. If one is to sell their soul, at least sell it for real currency instead of academic funny money (citations, papers, commitee positions, pats from higher ups). As another replier mentioned, at least work for assholes who will pay you better and in a career that has better prospects than academia.
One might say that the ideal it strives for, bettering the world and/or understanding it deeply, was supposed to be what one gained in place of losing income. Without that, why should anyone participate in it?
[0] http://100rsns.blogspot.com/2010/10/25-academe-is-built-on-p...
As a current CS PhD, I feel there are elements of truth in the letter, on the whole, it's a bit too dismissive of the value of academia.
Yes, a lot of research in academia ends up going nowhere, but that's not always obvious beforehand. Research is an inherently chancy endeavour with a low chance of success. But academia is still a source of important research. To name just two examples, much of the major deep learning research which everyone is jumping on these days was kept alive and done at universities. The CRISPR/Cas9 breakthrough in biology was done at universities.
It is true that there is a huge pressure to publish which leads to a lot of crap being published but that doesn't mean the academia is not valuable and it seems like a hard problem to figure out the right incentives (which we should of course work on). Maybe something that gives a weighted rank of the papers would be better able to put value on the research you've done and make purely the # of papers less of a unit of currency in the academia. Citations do that to some extent but they're still not a great solution.
Egos are a huge problem, but that's true in every sphere. Academics are humans too...
Yes, a lot of research in academia ends up going nowhere, but that's not always obvious beforehand. Research is an inherently chancy endeavour with a low chance of success. But academia is still a source of important research. To name just two examples, much of the major deep learning research which everyone is jumping on these days was kept alive and done at universities. The CRISPR/Cas9 breakthrough in biology was done at universities.
It is true that there is a huge pressure to publish which leads to a lot of crap being published but that doesn't mean the academia is not valuable and it seems like a hard problem to figure out the right incentives (which we should of course work on). Maybe something that gives a weighted rank of the papers would be better able to put value on the research you've done and make purely the # of papers less of a unit of currency in the academia. Citations do that to some extent but they're still not a great solution.
Egos are a huge problem, but that's true in every sphere. Academics are humans too...
Yes, that's what's missing from this article: recognizing academics as humans and not perfect idealistic beings.
To me criticisms like this need to at least suggest paths towards solutions. If the system is already as good as it can reasonably work, how can we criticize it?
It needed at least to suggest paths for researchers outside academia: will we get more research done outside? Will it fit better those idealistic goals?
To me criticisms like this need to at least suggest paths towards solutions. If the system is already as good as it can reasonably work, how can we criticize it?
It needed at least to suggest paths for researchers outside academia: will we get more research done outside? Will it fit better those idealistic goals?
I was similarly frustrated when I left a Math PhD program.
I realized that my best-case outcome was probably a tenure-track job at a #100 ranked school, and my worst/likely-case outcome was being a permanent adjunct with no other marketable skills. So I left to work at a software career.
I realized that my best-case outcome was probably a tenure-track job at a #100 ranked school, and my worst/likely-case outcome was being a permanent adjunct with no other marketable skills. So I left to work at a software career.
To paraphrase another part of this same article, who cares about rankings? Being a tenured math professor at any school is a sweet gig. You have literally zero of the capital & labor costs that require e.g. biologists to work at a major research campus or else.
I feel like this is why undergraduate research is absolutely key.
I had the opportunity to work in a lab while an undergrad and to do a couple industry research internships, and it set my expectations on what the Ph.D really is (and why I didn't go for it).
The problem is that many do not know what to expect or have expectations that differ from the reality.
I had the opportunity to work in a lab while an undergrad and to do a couple industry research internships, and it set my expectations on what the Ph.D really is (and why I didn't go for it).
The problem is that many do not know what to expect or have expectations that differ from the reality.
In Math, it's almost impossible to do serious undergraduate-level research. It takes about 2-3 years of graduate level study in a specialty to get to the point where you are at new territory. Almost all the easy theorems have been proven already.
Also, it wasn't until I was in graduate school that I realized people that were comparable/smarter than me were struggling with mediocre jobs or not finding any permanent job at all. I also saw people who were really weak but picked a hot specialty doing rather well.
Also, everything is so specialized in Math that nobody really understand anyone else's work. If everything is so specialized, then how can anyone decide whose work is good and whose work is junk? If objectivity is completely out the window in Math, what hope is there in other areas of science?
So it's essentially the same as being a programmer, where the skill of promoting yourself is more valuable than the skill of doing good work. At least I get paid more, and still have spare time to read about things that interest me.
Also, it wasn't until I was in graduate school that I realized people that were comparable/smarter than me were struggling with mediocre jobs or not finding any permanent job at all. I also saw people who were really weak but picked a hot specialty doing rather well.
Also, everything is so specialized in Math that nobody really understand anyone else's work. If everything is so specialized, then how can anyone decide whose work is good and whose work is junk? If objectivity is completely out the window in Math, what hope is there in other areas of science?
So it's essentially the same as being a programmer, where the skill of promoting yourself is more valuable than the skill of doing good work. At least I get paid more, and still have spare time to read about things that interest me.
Cached copy as I'm not getting a response from that page:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U3-ruJk...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U3-ruJk...
“it is important because I’ve spent too many years working on it”
This hits me really close to home. When I left graduate school, a lot of my peers were unhappy about a lot of the same things I was. The reason a majority of them stayed was because "I put so much time in already and what's another 3 years." I almost stayed for the same reason.
Sunk cost is a fallacy. Be happy now :)
This hits me really close to home. When I left graduate school, a lot of my peers were unhappy about a lot of the same things I was. The reason a majority of them stayed was because "I put so much time in already and what's another 3 years." I almost stayed for the same reason.
Sunk cost is a fallacy. Be happy now :)
Previous discussion, from two years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6355579
I didn't see anything mentioning chemistry/science in the commentary, so forgive me if I'm repeating something I missed...
The PhD is not "just for academia". It's the entry ticket for working in the biotech/pharma business. It's a 4-6 year process that demonstrates that one can do independent work in an organized fashion and write it up. Quite similar, except for scale, as how medicinal chemists (and various support disciplines) work.
One learns the jargon, often combines a complementary post-doc to round out training (such as synthetic PhD following up with natural product p-doc). This extra nudge improves the chance of being hired and can usually lead to more $$ upon hiring. PhD's usually know 1-2 things well. P-docs, maybe, push that up to 3-5. It's a basis for getting started.
Is the entry-ticket aspect of a PhD fair to BS/MS students, who tend to be the lab denizens who actually do the work? No, probably not. There's a huge status difference between "PhD" and "pair of hands"... But then, as the difference is only 2-ish years, carrying through to PhD should be the typical choice (barring real-life issues forcing termination).
Due to job/geographic stability, it's not the best career choice, but it's a useful one (as, for example, they actually DO work towards curing or alleviating disease). The pay is reasonable, the chance for personal recognition is present and there's chances for "financial renumeration" if one scores big-time. And if groups like YC get really into funding longer-horizon projects, the jobs just might reappear.
The PhD is not "just for academia". It's the entry ticket for working in the biotech/pharma business. It's a 4-6 year process that demonstrates that one can do independent work in an organized fashion and write it up. Quite similar, except for scale, as how medicinal chemists (and various support disciplines) work.
One learns the jargon, often combines a complementary post-doc to round out training (such as synthetic PhD following up with natural product p-doc). This extra nudge improves the chance of being hired and can usually lead to more $$ upon hiring. PhD's usually know 1-2 things well. P-docs, maybe, push that up to 3-5. It's a basis for getting started.
Is the entry-ticket aspect of a PhD fair to BS/MS students, who tend to be the lab denizens who actually do the work? No, probably not. There's a huge status difference between "PhD" and "pair of hands"... But then, as the difference is only 2-ish years, carrying through to PhD should be the typical choice (barring real-life issues forcing termination).
Due to job/geographic stability, it's not the best career choice, but it's a useful one (as, for example, they actually DO work towards curing or alleviating disease). The pay is reasonable, the chance for personal recognition is present and there's chances for "financial renumeration" if one scores big-time. And if groups like YC get really into funding longer-horizon projects, the jobs just might reappear.
I had always wanted to be a university professor.
I do a ton of practical algorithmic research in the course of personal and professional software development. I love teaching and tutoring. I love definitively and completely solving hard problems with new solutions. I love devising proven partial solutions when that's not feasible, and looking forward to the rest. When I get a bug up my nose about a problem, I do not rest until it's solved, and solved properly.
It's probably around 15 years ago when I had my own realization that success in academia is driven primarily by publishing metrics. Since that's the reward mechanism, academia has optimized for that case above all else. As the article lists, only the current hot topics for publishing get any authorization or funding, so who knows what you'd actually be working on. And whatever you're working on demands _everything_ you have to avoid failure. Beyond that level of graduate indentured servant, it's all posturing and politics, still chasing the hot publishing topics.
I have been able to work on projects that map well to sub-problems of my long term interest field. Hobby and work blends nicely. I love what I do. While I'm not yet reaping significantly financially, I do what I want and do not have the stress and crunch of either academic process or a soul-sucking job, and that was my tradeoff to decide.
I still have unbounded financial potential as a business owner and curator of ground-breaking technologies. But I also know that technical merit does not equate to success in the market; that's another set of skills, and its own challenging industry.
I do a ton of practical algorithmic research in the course of personal and professional software development. I love teaching and tutoring. I love definitively and completely solving hard problems with new solutions. I love devising proven partial solutions when that's not feasible, and looking forward to the rest. When I get a bug up my nose about a problem, I do not rest until it's solved, and solved properly.
It's probably around 15 years ago when I had my own realization that success in academia is driven primarily by publishing metrics. Since that's the reward mechanism, academia has optimized for that case above all else. As the article lists, only the current hot topics for publishing get any authorization or funding, so who knows what you'd actually be working on. And whatever you're working on demands _everything_ you have to avoid failure. Beyond that level of graduate indentured servant, it's all posturing and politics, still chasing the hot publishing topics.
I have been able to work on projects that map well to sub-problems of my long term interest field. Hobby and work blends nicely. I love what I do. While I'm not yet reaping significantly financially, I do what I want and do not have the stress and crunch of either academic process or a soul-sucking job, and that was my tradeoff to decide.
I still have unbounded financial potential as a business owner and curator of ground-breaking technologies. But I also know that technical merit does not equate to success in the market; that's another set of skills, and its own challenging industry.
This is the last rant out of numerous appearing on the web. I wonder if, from a historical perspective, wasn't always like that. Galileo risked his life for science. Only undisputed geniuses of their time like Newton, Gauss or Archimedes could think and say something original without being ridiculed by their peers.
Newton was ridiculed by his peers (or at least his contemporaries). Part of the reason why people tell the story of Halley convincing Newton to publish the Principia is that Newton hadn't published anything after the reception of some of his early work on optics.
For example, one of Newton's observations was that the spectrum cast by a prism he'd bought at a local fair was elongated. Being Newton, and therefore given to extreme of care, he had arranged the prism in a room that was about twenty feet long and was struck by sunlight coming through a pinhole in a shutter. This is not a simple thing to arrange, and because the Earth is rotating the correct geometry lasts quite a short time. But it allowed him to see the elongation of the spectrum.
The problem was that received wisdom said the spectrum should be circular, as it was cast by a circular beam. Some of the replies to Newton's paper were on the order of, "Well, I held up a prism and took a quick look and it seemed ciruclar to me! Mr Newton is a fool."
Science is always going to be like this. People are mostly idiots (I certainly am, most of the time.) But the author's point is that it is worse now, and that the institutional incentives that make it worse are pretty clear. Get a couple of beer into an older scientist and they'll often tell you that they couldn't have gotten an academic position in the current climate.
Furthermore, similar incentives are in play all over the world--althouhg a friend in the Far East tells me things are better there because universities are still trying to build reputations so they are engaged in more fundamental research rather than just grant-writing.
Given this, and given we depend on science to solve some of our biggest problems, and given we have a lot of smart, passionate, dedicated people going into the sciences to solve those problems, an institutional structure that fails to deliver on the promise of giving those people a meaningful career solving problems that matter is a serious problem for Enlightenment civilization.
For example, one of Newton's observations was that the spectrum cast by a prism he'd bought at a local fair was elongated. Being Newton, and therefore given to extreme of care, he had arranged the prism in a room that was about twenty feet long and was struck by sunlight coming through a pinhole in a shutter. This is not a simple thing to arrange, and because the Earth is rotating the correct geometry lasts quite a short time. But it allowed him to see the elongation of the spectrum.
The problem was that received wisdom said the spectrum should be circular, as it was cast by a circular beam. Some of the replies to Newton's paper were on the order of, "Well, I held up a prism and took a quick look and it seemed ciruclar to me! Mr Newton is a fool."
Science is always going to be like this. People are mostly idiots (I certainly am, most of the time.) But the author's point is that it is worse now, and that the institutional incentives that make it worse are pretty clear. Get a couple of beer into an older scientist and they'll often tell you that they couldn't have gotten an academic position in the current climate.
Furthermore, similar incentives are in play all over the world--althouhg a friend in the Far East tells me things are better there because universities are still trying to build reputations so they are engaged in more fundamental research rather than just grant-writing.
Given this, and given we depend on science to solve some of our biggest problems, and given we have a lot of smart, passionate, dedicated people going into the sciences to solve those problems, an institutional structure that fails to deliver on the promise of giving those people a meaningful career solving problems that matter is a serious problem for Enlightenment civilization.
Newton also went more or less crazy and spent his last 4 decades studying alchemy and astrology.
Some of the replies to Newton's paper were on the order of, "Well, I held up a prism and took a quick look and it seemed ciruclar to me! Mr Newton is a fool."
OTOH Goethe (yes, that Goethe...), 200 years later, made roughly the same argument and developed some pretty amazing results from it.
Some of the replies to Newton's paper were on the order of, "Well, I held up a prism and took a quick look and it seemed ciruclar to me! Mr Newton is a fool."
OTOH Goethe (yes, that Goethe...), 200 years later, made roughly the same argument and developed some pretty amazing results from it.
> Newton was ridiculed by his peers (or at least his contemporaries). Part of the reason why people tell the story of Halley convincing Newton to publish the Principia is that Newton hadn't published anything after the reception of some of his early work on optics.
It doesn't look like had it rough though. From his early years he was kinda distinguished[1] at age 27. But thanks for the heads-up and your Newton story. These stories are the ones I enjoy the most :-)
ps. You certainly don't look like an idiot to me. But I see what you mean, as Shakespeare often hinted, the wise men allows doubt into any conversation while the fool men never does. :-)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Early_life
It doesn't look like had it rough though. From his early years he was kinda distinguished[1] at age 27. But thanks for the heads-up and your Newton story. These stories are the ones I enjoy the most :-)
ps. You certainly don't look like an idiot to me. But I see what you mean, as Shakespeare often hinted, the wise men allows doubt into any conversation while the fool men never does. :-)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Early_life
> as Shakespeare often hinted, the wise men allows doubt into any conversation while the fool men never does.
This is also known as impostor syndrome [1] vs. Dunning-Kruger effect [2].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
This is also known as impostor syndrome [1] vs. Dunning-Kruger effect [2].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Even if you were correct, would that mean that we should leave it at that? Society often seems to implicitly assume that it's right that geniuses are outsiders. People are probably used to this, as it is often depicted that way in literature etc. [1]. In fact, some appear to believe that the suffering might even help geniuses to focus on their work and to think outside the box. I suspect that this is a package deal fallacy [2], since there are also plenty of examples of people who didn't walk through hell to make great intellectual achievements.
[1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IntelligenceEqual...
[2] http://lesswrong.com/lw/hu/the_third_alternative/
[1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IntelligenceEqual...
[2] http://lesswrong.com/lw/hu/the_third_alternative/
That's a peculiarity of culture. There are many places where nobody thinks geniuses are supposed to be socially isolated, and so they're not.
Peer review is censorship.
If you have a truly original idea, you're essentially calling out all your peers for being frauds for not noticing it themselves, so they will ridicule or censor you.
If you have a truly original idea, you're essentially calling out all your peers for being frauds for not noticing it themselves, so they will ridicule or censor you.
[deleted]
Server seems to have been hugged to death.
Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U3-ruJk...
Note that the link is from 2013.
Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U3-ruJk...
Note that the link is from 2013.
Yes, fine, we have all heard the complaints. I've thought similar things myself.
But when are we going to put our heads together to analyze the problem into its mutable points and immutable points, the better to find alternative arrangements and solutions?
But when are we going to put our heads together to analyze the problem into its mutable points and immutable points, the better to find alternative arrangements and solutions?
I'm getting some people to flesh out a graduate program to focus on this problem, if you want to join..
Not sure if ironic...
"The Higher Learning in America", by Thorstein Veblen, 1918. If this poor fellow had only read this book before commencing in his studies, perhaps it would have steeled his nerves somewhat, or sent him in another direction.
I sympathize with a lot of these complaints, but the thing that really bothers me about a lot of these academia resignations, or complaints about the academic job market, is that there is definitely an expectation that a path (e.g., a job) should be provided for a young researcher to do whatever he or she wants, research-wise. I really wish that graduate school was viewed less as a job tunnel/funnel and more like undergrad, where it is an opportunity to learn (and network, and signal, and so forth) but ultimately, it's up to the student to pick a path, with the skills and reputation earned along the way.
To provide a counter to the hopelessness:
As much as I love the academy, and research, I never wanted to be a professor. After my postdoc I started a research and consulting company (thanks HN for many wise words of advice about going solo). I firmly believe that, in contrast to the hierarchical and managerial state of academic (and a lot of industrial) research, there is a valuable role to be played by professional scientists. So many of the badass scientists I know have such a small fraction of their time that they can devote to actually carrying out research[1], that all of their wisdom, efficiency and so forth is somewhat wasted as they go about their managerial lives as professors or industrial scientists. I don't think it has to be this way.
I haven't been doing this forever, but so far it's been great. I have been doing some interesting, research-oriented consulting (and some not so interesting, too), which puts money in the bank. It also lets me see some of the problems that industrial scientists deal with. I'm in geoscience and the consulting so far is all in energy, and unsolved problems there are just as cool if not cooler than the question du jour in academic work--and some of the problems are exactly the same... And it's very rewarding to be brought in on some of these projects, and help hard-working people out.
I also spend a good chunk of my time, half maybe, doing my own research, collaborating with others, and writing proposals to NSF and other public agencies. I of course have more ideas than I can ever hope to see through, but I feel very free to work on whatever I see fit, even if it's a bit outside of my experience and comfort zone.
In the end, I am hoping (and betting) that my accumulating strengths as a professional researcher, combined with the falling costs of a lot of science, particularly computational science and online journal access, will allow me to be as productive or more as I would managing graduate students and post-docs, and a lot happier. I also think that by doing consulting instead of teaching (which I enjoy but not enough), I can have a bit higher maximum potential income as well, and take a month off to raft through Peru when I get the hankering.
OK, so just to summarize, this ended up more biographical than I wanted: I think there is a market for professional, non-academic scientists, both in academic-type (i.e. gov't-funded) and industrial research. It seems to be the road less traveled but if you're not into that then science might not be your thing. It might be very hard at times, and hopefully you have a good support network.
[1]: I do believe that writing proposals is actually doing a very important part of science by making you get your shit together and vet yourself. It'd be fun if it wasn't for the existential pressure.
To provide a counter to the hopelessness:
As much as I love the academy, and research, I never wanted to be a professor. After my postdoc I started a research and consulting company (thanks HN for many wise words of advice about going solo). I firmly believe that, in contrast to the hierarchical and managerial state of academic (and a lot of industrial) research, there is a valuable role to be played by professional scientists. So many of the badass scientists I know have such a small fraction of their time that they can devote to actually carrying out research[1], that all of their wisdom, efficiency and so forth is somewhat wasted as they go about their managerial lives as professors or industrial scientists. I don't think it has to be this way.
I haven't been doing this forever, but so far it's been great. I have been doing some interesting, research-oriented consulting (and some not so interesting, too), which puts money in the bank. It also lets me see some of the problems that industrial scientists deal with. I'm in geoscience and the consulting so far is all in energy, and unsolved problems there are just as cool if not cooler than the question du jour in academic work--and some of the problems are exactly the same... And it's very rewarding to be brought in on some of these projects, and help hard-working people out.
I also spend a good chunk of my time, half maybe, doing my own research, collaborating with others, and writing proposals to NSF and other public agencies. I of course have more ideas than I can ever hope to see through, but I feel very free to work on whatever I see fit, even if it's a bit outside of my experience and comfort zone.
In the end, I am hoping (and betting) that my accumulating strengths as a professional researcher, combined with the falling costs of a lot of science, particularly computational science and online journal access, will allow me to be as productive or more as I would managing graduate students and post-docs, and a lot happier. I also think that by doing consulting instead of teaching (which I enjoy but not enough), I can have a bit higher maximum potential income as well, and take a month off to raft through Peru when I get the hankering.
OK, so just to summarize, this ended up more biographical than I wanted: I think there is a market for professional, non-academic scientists, both in academic-type (i.e. gov't-funded) and industrial research. It seems to be the road less traveled but if you're not into that then science might not be your thing. It might be very hard at times, and hopefully you have a good support network.
[1]: I do believe that writing proposals is actually doing a very important part of science by making you get your shit together and vet yourself. It'd be fun if it wasn't for the existential pressure.
Academia fucked up by copping an attitude toward the most important, but least glamorous, aspect of the job: teaching. In the 1960s, the U.S. had a strong research culture. Unfortunately, the professoriate took the attitude that research was their real work and that teaching was just grunt work to be sloughed off to the people at the bottom of the heap (graduate students and juniors). Eventually, they turned that work over to low-paid adjunct faculty, occasionally taking on an upper-level undergraduate course.
Teaching is important for a number of reasons, but it also functions as a sales front for research. Research is important, but only educated people can see its importance. If 40% of the next generation's leaders learn calculus and 5% learn complex analysis, then they'll have an appreciation for the beauty of mathematics and an understanding of its importance. However, if they're taught by overworked, underpaid adjuncts who've lost all enthusiasm for the subject, then the rising generation will lose sight of why the work is importat.
This is, of course, bad for science but even worse for the humanities, where the transfer of knowledge from one generation to the next (i.e. teaching) is almost the entire point, because commercial applications are nonexistent. I won't call most humanities research unimportant, because I don't understand most of it, but I will say that if you have a leadership class as ignorant of the humanities as the American upper and upper-middle classes are, you're going to have a hard time selling anyone on the importance of it. Most people are quick to decry what they don't understand as useless and unnecessary.
When the research rock stars started de-emphasizing teaching and offloading the work, the rest of society (including university administrators) called their bluff. If they were so ready to slough off the teaching (which is what most of the world sees as the real work) to overworked adjuncts, then why have professors at all? Of course, a few politically adept stars (grant-writing rain-makers) managed to hold on... but the quiet researchers are done.
The injustice of the tenure system is that the people to suffer for this attitude were the young-- not the entrenched tenured professors who created that culture. The jobs got taken away, but not from the people who copped that negative attitude toward teaching. It was the rising generation (from 1985-ish to today) that got fucked. At this point, you have a toxic culture of scarcity and the false poverty mentality (i.e. the "I'm 75% poorer than my friends, so I'm living a life of service and the rules don't apply to me" attitude).
Teaching is important for a number of reasons, but it also functions as a sales front for research. Research is important, but only educated people can see its importance. If 40% of the next generation's leaders learn calculus and 5% learn complex analysis, then they'll have an appreciation for the beauty of mathematics and an understanding of its importance. However, if they're taught by overworked, underpaid adjuncts who've lost all enthusiasm for the subject, then the rising generation will lose sight of why the work is importat.
This is, of course, bad for science but even worse for the humanities, where the transfer of knowledge from one generation to the next (i.e. teaching) is almost the entire point, because commercial applications are nonexistent. I won't call most humanities research unimportant, because I don't understand most of it, but I will say that if you have a leadership class as ignorant of the humanities as the American upper and upper-middle classes are, you're going to have a hard time selling anyone on the importance of it. Most people are quick to decry what they don't understand as useless and unnecessary.
When the research rock stars started de-emphasizing teaching and offloading the work, the rest of society (including university administrators) called their bluff. If they were so ready to slough off the teaching (which is what most of the world sees as the real work) to overworked adjuncts, then why have professors at all? Of course, a few politically adept stars (grant-writing rain-makers) managed to hold on... but the quiet researchers are done.
The injustice of the tenure system is that the people to suffer for this attitude were the young-- not the entrenched tenured professors who created that culture. The jobs got taken away, but not from the people who copped that negative attitude toward teaching. It was the rising generation (from 1985-ish to today) that got fucked. At this point, you have a toxic culture of scarcity and the false poverty mentality (i.e. the "I'm 75% poorer than my friends, so I'm living a life of service and the rules don't apply to me" attitude).
Academia is crap. Most jobs are crap. Most people do not make any dents in the universe. Most relationships end.
One should learn to recognize situations where irrationality is the norm. The easy one to spot is music. Way more people want to be musicians than the market for their output can bear. These market realities will dominate your life if you decide to become a musician. Doesn't mean you can't make it, just means that if you want a semblance of control over whether you'll make it or not, you have to create that control yourself and you'll have nobody to help you that can really help you because they have to deal with the market realities too. Even if you do make it you'll be similarly powerless to change the realities.
Once you understand the dynamic you will immediately see the pattern everywhere. Film. Academia. Comedy. The Apple App Store. The dating market for very attractive women. People who want me to work on their websites or otherwise hire me. Silicon Valley. You have to deal with all the other assholes in the world who want the same thing you want, and there's only so much of it to go around. The ones that succeed learn how to increase the demand for the services they want to provide. The ones that don't bitch about how unfair everything is.