CMU’s computer science dean on its poaching problem • Hacker News Board

Re: CMU’s computer science dean on its poaching problem

#21

Post by eitally » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 12:02 PM UTC

chrisbennet wrote: post #16

As an aside, the use of the term "poaching" always bugged me. It implies that an employee is owned by a company like some deer in the King's forest.

Not really. It originated to describe high level employees who take a job and then exploit their personal network to hire away friends. This is super-common and expected, and is also the reason non-competes became popular. It wasn't until later, the tech boom, that "poaching" was repurposed to be more generalized luring of high potential employees from wherever using whatever ($, perks) means available.

Re: CMU’s computer science dean on its poaching problem

#22

Post by computervision » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 12:09 PM UTC

computervision wrote: post #14

kriro wrote: post #9

CMU has dropped significantly in my personal ranking of universities. None of that was related to faculty being hired away. All of it is related to activities like attacking the Tor network or accidentally admitting 800 students. Maybe they have a PR problem but my overal view of them is pretty meh even though they are one of the more elite CS schools (and I think Pittsburgh is a fairly nice city, never been there th…

Your metric for ranking universities is in no way based on how productive the university is in research or the quality of the graduating students. Even if you consider the things you mentioned as proxies for the quality of the university, they are extremely weak ones and there are better metrics available to judge the quality of a university. Am I wrong in viewing this comment as a flawed attempt to attack the univer…

Thanks OP for the downvote without any written rebuttal, I'll take that as a confirmation of my above point.

Re: CMU’s computer science dean on its poaching problem

#23

Post by chrisbennet » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 12:18 PM UTC

eitally wrote: post #21

chrisbennet wrote: post #16

As an aside, the use of the term "poaching" always bugged me. It implies that an employee is owned by a company like some deer in the King's forest.

Not really. It originated to describe high level employees who take a job and then exploit their personal network to hire away friends. This is super-common and expected, and is also the reason non-competes became popular. It wasn't until later, the tech boom, that "poaching" was repurposed to be more generalized luring of high potential employees from wherever using whatever ($, perks) means available.

An that use of the term "poaching" [high level employee hiring away friends] originated with the earlier/original meaning of the term i.e. "hunting animals illegally". The deer (for example) were the property of the King - Robin Hood was a poacher.

Re: CMU’s computer science dean on its poaching problem

#24

Post by philh » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 12:22 PM UTC

computervision wrote: post #22

computervision wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your metric for ranking universities is in no way based on how productive the university is in research or the quality of the graduating students. Even if you consider the things you mentioned as proxies for the quality of the university, they are extremely weak ones and there are better metrics available to judge the quality of a university. Am I wrong in viewing this comment as a flawed attempt to attack the univer…

Thanks OP for the downvote without any written rebuttal, I'll take that as a confirmation of my above point.

You can't downvote replies to your own comments.

Re: CMU’s computer science dean on its poaching problem

#25

Post by TheCowboy » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 1:15 PM UTC

argonaut wrote: post #20

imgabe wrote: post #19

Academia in general is screwing itself. The main reason for anyone to go into it is to work on interesting problems in a self-directed fashion with amazing job security. You probably wouldn't get rich, but you'll have a nice upper-middle class salary and almost no way of getting fired. Now the available tenure-track positions are declining every year in favor of adjunct quasi-slave labor. Even if you do win the lotte…

In computer science, your criticisms are very very valid for graduate students: they make ~30k/year when they could be making ~200k/year at, say, Google, and they usually have less autonomy than a professor. But they don't really apply to tenure-track faculty. If grad school is already a sunk cost for you, (or it was valuable to you in other non-monetary areas), a tenure-track position can actually be quite a lucrati…

Is it really that easy to enter finance at that level (or at all), or even get a job at Google for $200k/year? I don't think it's that automatic unless your background is one that includes the "correct" college, an affluent background, and more.

Many people end up pursuing an advanced degree in this field because they want to break into a new industry, make themselves more appealing to employers and make more money. If you can do a master's while working, you don't end up with 2+ years of lost salary as well.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I don't have a computer science degree and I currently find myself considering a master's for those reasons. It would be nice to avoid having to go that route.

Re: CMU’s computer science dean on its poaching problem

#26

Post by eli_gottlieb » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 1:16 PM UTC

electriclove wrote: post #6

Professors at CMU make incredibly great salaries.. they are not 'poor'

And what about all the researchers who don't become professors at the world's top computer-science department?

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1144

Re: CMU’s computer science dean on its poaching problem

#27

Post by TheCowboy » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 1:22 PM UTC

eitally wrote: post #21

chrisbennet wrote: post #16

As an aside, the use of the term "poaching" always bugged me. It implies that an employee is owned by a company like some deer in the King's forest.

Not really. It originated to describe high level employees who take a job and then exploit their personal network to hire away friends. This is super-common and expected, and is also the reason non-competes became popular. It wasn't until later, the tech boom, that "poaching" was repurposed to be more generalized luring of high potential employees from wherever using whatever ($, perks) means available.

The idea that they need non-competes to retain talent should still set off some alarms that maybe companies aren't paying market rate salaries.

Most people don't leave a company for less money and no other benefits, and there's nothing wrong with employees being lured away for more pay. That's how it's supposed to work.

Re: CMU’s computer science dean on its poaching problem

#28

Post by wrecktangle » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 1:33 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #19

Academia in general is screwing itself. The main reason for anyone to go into it is to work on interesting problems in a self-directed fashion with amazing job security. You probably wouldn't get rich, but you'll have a nice upper-middle class salary and almost no way of getting fired. Now the available tenure-track positions are declining every year in favor of adjunct quasi-slave labor. Even if you do win the lotte…

Simply why Instrumentl is such a welcome idea.

Re: CMU’s computer science dean on its poaching problem

#29

Post by mikeash » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 1:39 PM UTC

chrisbennet wrote: post #16

As an aside, the use of the term "poaching" always bugged me. It implies that an employee is owned by a company like some deer in the King's forest.

That was my immediate reaction to this title as well. Even if you discount the ownership thing as a historical artifact of the language, the term is clearly used as a way to reduce competition for labor and drive down salaries.

Re: CMU’s computer science dean on its poaching problem

#30

Post by pc86 » Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

TheCowboy wrote: post #25

argonaut wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In computer science, your criticisms are very very valid for graduate students: they make ~30k/year when they could be making ~200k/year at, say, Google, and they usually have less autonomy than a professor. But they don't really apply to tenure-track faculty. If grad school is already a sunk cost for you, (or it was valuable to you in other non-monetary areas), a tenure-track position can actually be quite a lucrati…

Is it really that easy to enter finance at that level (or at all), or even get a job at Google for $200k/year? I don't think it's that automatic unless your background is one that includes the "correct" college, an affluent background, and more. Many people end up pursuing an advanced degree in this field because they want to break into a new industry, make themselves more appealing to employers and make more money.…

Well first of all the only advantage an affluent background will give you to getting a job at Google is the same advantage it'd give you for any other employer or any other industry (better school growing up, able to focus on that school instead of working, etc).

And we're already presupposing that the person in question is sufficiently hard-working and intelligent that they could be a tenure-track professor at a major research institution. I would argue that the vast of majority of folks in that position could get a very good job at Google provided they had the correct skill set.

And I don't know what part of CS you're most interested in, but my degree is in Political Science and after the first shitty one I haven't had any trouble finding development work in my tiny city.