Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse • Hacker News Board

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#211

Post by compuder » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 5:30 PM UTC

Lxr wrote: post #49

If a job is complex, multifaceted and involves subtle trade-offs, the best approach is to hire good people, pay them the going rate and tell them to do the job to the best of their ability. Absolutely, could not agree more. This is the only way to beat gamification of metrics in my opinion. There is a worrying trend of treating staff as equally capable but untrusted cogs in a wheel, and metricising performance. I fun…

>no amount of rules or metrics can turn a bad academic into a good one...

I believe you've mistaken these systems as being for reform purposes, rather than existing as a way to weed out bad actors who want to enjoy the substantial benefits of tenure or a large salary without doing the work which justifies them.

When you reject metrics, the insidious thing is that you lack tools to catch bad actors who, due to oft-present subjectives like better than average lying ability, being liked by their team despite being largely ineffective, and exploitation of people's desire to not create conflict, the organization will never hear about them until long after the damage is done, they've made off like bandits, and you can no longer fix what they've done, since you didn't know when it happened.

Metrics cut through these specific subjectives and are therefore effectively necessary.

You can be a dirty academic, but published paper number metrics mean fakers now need to be, minimum, good enough to fake doing the job of a real academic well enough to publish, which means at least theoretically they could reform. Code reviews, pull requests, and similar programming measures do the same, leaving a clear and auditable point at which failure can be caught and later reversed. They further make it necessary to be good enough at programming to not only survive the interview, but also fake a long-term progression of source code which means to cheat you at least need to know how to program well enough to get away with it, which is within spitting distance of actually coding something useful anyways.

Admittedly, I don't think metrics create good incentives a lot of the time, but if you're thinking about the very long term and want to prevent your company's bottom from solely being a feudally structured nepotism contest, metrics are the only way to do so.

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#212

Post by BaronSamedi » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 5:34 PM UTC

deong wrote: post #90

BaronSamedi wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting targets won't solve anything since this is a structural problem. You cannot leave those structures in place and expect a different outcome. That is just treating the symptoms. In my view the solution is simple: instead of letting bureaucrats and administrators decide, let parents and students choose the classes and teachers they want. Those teachers that offer classes and a teaching style that students actual…

> I suppose you could make the authoritarian argument that the experts know better than you and should be allowed to force you take the classes they think best. I'm not sure that's especially authoritarian rather than just practical. I have a CS PhD focused on optimization and machine learning. I trust a student to mostly decide whether they feel like computer science is a good field for them to go into, but once the…

I don't disagree with your point. I was mostly thinking of general education and the high school curricula.

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of the PhD style program. It seems old-fashioned and possibly obsolete to me. I would prefer to see it replaced by something like, in the case you mention, an advanced certification in machine learning. I don't know the field well enough to say what such a certification might entail but maybe testing and some kind of project?

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#213

Post by deong » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 5:39 PM UTC

cr0sh wrote: post #193

deong wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that always infuriated me about computer science (my field), is that I don't actually need the big research grant. There are people who do, of course, but I could do most of what I found interesting and useful with a high-end desktop PC and some free time. But universities don't operate that way anymore. It doesn't matter that all I need is $5K and some time -- the university needs their 40% cut of a multi-…

So now that you are out of academia, do you now occasionally pursue those low-cost research ideas in computer science on your own? I mean, while $5k isn't anything to sneeze at, it is still within the realm of DIY research monetary levels (ie - if I wanted to, I could save up such an amount in a few months from my workaday salary). So - unless such research no longer interests you (or you have zero free time to devot…

I generally stay current in my research field, but that's a different thing than actually contributing. The free time is one aspect of the problem, but there's also the problem of attending conferences regularly. I could pay the expense with the excess salary that industry pays, but unless you work for a research group, it's unlikely that you can make a workable schedule.

Not to say it couldn't be done. But there are enough hurdles that I end up mostly just not participating much. That's not ideal to me, but it's where my actions show my priorities to be, I guess.

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#214

Post by wpietri » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 5:39 PM UTC

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #206

wpietri wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a worrying trend of treating staff as equally capable but untrusted cogs in a wheel, and metricising performance. That's a great way of summing up what I've heard called "managerialism". There's a theory behind, e.g., the MBA that a competent manager can manage anything. That what one manages makes no difference as long as you're a real manager. One of the corollaries of that theory is that all one has to…

> I don't think this theory makes much sense when you examine it. But it's excellent at justifying a caste system, one where all workers are controlled by wise managers, and where there's a stable hierarchy of executives above that. I note that the hierarchy established is basically equivalent to those of feudalism. It also has the handy property of justifying high compensation for managers and executives; since work…

I'm not opposed to managers. I am one, after all. But I don't think "management" is a universal skill. I think somebody who manages developers should probably be a developer. I think somebody who manages doctors should be a doctor. And I think there's a lot of merit in non-hierarchical systems, like the way doctors and lawyers are mainly accountable to professional organizations.

I agree that metricising knowledge work is a mistake. But I think it's also true for other kinds of work. In colleges I worked in a factory and there was no end of trouble that came from managing via metrics.

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#215

Post by wpietri » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 5:46 PM UTC

nickpinkston wrote: post #100

wpietri wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a worrying trend of treating staff as equally capable but untrusted cogs in a wheel, and metricising performance. That's a great way of summing up what I've heard called "managerialism". There's a theory behind, e.g., the MBA that a competent manager can manage anything. That what one manages makes no difference as long as you're a real manager. One of the corollaries of that theory is that all one has to…

I tend to find people with your view have never been an executive managing the managers, or even a manager. When you are (like myself) then you see that good managers / leadership (including tech team leads, etc.) really do make a massive difference in performance with the same people. Things like metrics, values, and re-orgs might seem like Dilbert-esque corporate speak (a view I used to share), but they're incredib…

Hello! I have been both, as well as a founder. I also have been consulting on organizational process since before you started high school, so maybe lay off the condescension a bit.

I'm not saying good management is unnecessary. I'm saying that managerialism is basically the opposite of good management. Metrics can be valuable if used very carefully. But they so rarely are, because a lot of the drive for metrics is really is in service of a cultivated shallowness. Simple metrics allow somebody to swoop in, jerk some levers, provide apparent gain, and then jet off to something else, never mind the consequences.

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#216

Post by dasmoth » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 5:49 PM UTC

nickpinkston wrote: post #100

wpietri wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a worrying trend of treating staff as equally capable but untrusted cogs in a wheel, and metricising performance. That's a great way of summing up what I've heard called "managerialism". There's a theory behind, e.g., the MBA that a competent manager can manage anything. That what one manages makes no difference as long as you're a real manager. One of the corollaries of that theory is that all one has to…

I tend to find people with your view have never been an executive managing the managers, or even a manager. When you are (like myself) then you see that good managers / leadership (including tech team leads, etc.) really do make a massive difference in performance with the same people. Things like metrics, values, and re-orgs might seem like Dilbert-esque corporate speak (a view I used to share), but they're incredib…

Things like metrics, values, and re-orgs might seem like Dilbert-esque corporate speak (a view I used to share), but they're incredibly important once you're trying to get a bunch of people to do something with excellence and speed.

The need for this sometimes seems to be, itself, an aspect of managerialism. Sure, if you're going to the moon on a tight timescale you probably do need to marshal a larger number of people than can usefully self-organise in the available time. But most projects are much smaller scale. A feature of managerialialist organisations is that there's rarely any consideration of the possibility that a give project could be done by a self-organised group (let alone a single smart individual). Everything starts with managers assigning a "team", which then inevitably ends up requiring management.

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#217

Post by iamacynic » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 5:49 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #214

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think this theory makes much sense when you examine it. But it's excellent at justifying a caste system, one where all workers are controlled by wise managers, and where there's a stable hierarchy of executives above that. I note that the hierarchy established is basically equivalent to those of feudalism. It also has the handy property of justifying high compensation for managers and executives; since work…

I'm not opposed to managers. I am one, after all. But I don't think "management" is a universal skill. I think somebody who manages developers should probably be a developer. I think somebody who manages doctors should be a doctor. And I think there's a lot of merit in non-hierarchical systems, like the way doctors and lawyers are mainly accountable to professional organizations. I agree that metricising knowledge wo…

> I think somebody who manages doctors should be a doctor.

i could be wrong, but i believe in 'real' professions like medicine and law, there's some kind of board/bar rule that prohibits being managed by someone who never had the actual job they're managing. any one know if that's accurate?

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#218

Post by deong » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

flamedoge wrote: post #138

deong wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that always infuriated me about computer science (my field), is that I don't actually need the big research grant. There are people who do, of course, but I could do most of what I found interesting and useful with a high-end desktop PC and some free time. But universities don't operate that way anymore. It doesn't matter that all I need is $5K and some time -- the university needs their 40% cut of a multi-…

I can do research with a thinkpad and being a part-time barista...

Indeed you can. It's much harder though. If you have a full-time job unrelated to your research, you need to self-fund a lot of expenses. You need to convince your boss to let you take time off to go to that conference to present your work. You need to foster connections to other researchers through activities like reviewing for journals, etc.

Of course, you can bypass all that and just publish straight to the internet. Personally, I find that to be enormously difficult. The interactions with my peers -- the conversations over beers in the evenings during conferences -- are so useful. Losing those hurts your ability to do good work.

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#219

Post by jgmjgm » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 5:57 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #214

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think this theory makes much sense when you examine it. But it's excellent at justifying a caste system, one where all workers are controlled by wise managers, and where there's a stable hierarchy of executives above that. I note that the hierarchy established is basically equivalent to those of feudalism. It also has the handy property of justifying high compensation for managers and executives; since work…

I'm not opposed to managers. I am one, after all. But I don't think "management" is a universal skill. I think somebody who manages developers should probably be a developer. I think somebody who manages doctors should be a doctor. And I think there's a lot of merit in non-hierarchical systems, like the way doctors and lawyers are mainly accountable to professional organizations. I agree that metricising knowledge wo…

Agreed. The big problem in academia is that when you don't trust academics you need administration to provide oversight. Administration is now a huge portion of the cost of university education. Not research, admin.

To be fair, academics can also be childish, vindictive, sexist. There is also a real problem of hiring one's friends and students. BUT inter-organizational competition helps to some extent with these problems. Regardless, they justify administration and associated costs.

Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse

#220

Post by BaronSamedi » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 5:57 PM UTC

tux1968 wrote: post #99

BaronSamedi wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting targets won't solve anything since this is a structural problem. You cannot leave those structures in place and expect a different outcome. That is just treating the symptoms. In my view the solution is simple: instead of letting bureaucrats and administrators decide, let parents and students choose the classes and teachers they want. Those teachers that offer classes and a teaching style that students actual…

Yes please. I want my kids to compete in the job market against the millions of people who would be taught science and evolution in the religious schools that would clearly emerge under such a system.

As if that isn't already happening under the current system. But, hey, why even think about change? The US educational system is already so good at improving, not letting institutional inertia block new ideas, offering better value for parents and students,...