Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear Academia, I loved you, but I’m leaving you (2014)

anothersb.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 92 posts

Re: Dear Academia, I loved you, but I’m leaving you (2014)

#51

Post by account2 »

PAClearner wrote: post #47
account2 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am considering going into a CS PhD focusing in ML. The mid 40k-70k range was from quick google search I did for CS post docs in ML in lower cost of living areas where the cost of living is much lower than on the West Coast. I am trying to look at career prospects and weigh whether it makes sense to stay in academia or jump to industry (after I complete a PhD). If wages are closer to 60k-100k for post docs, then I m…

Well I would be happy to provide some context. I just finished my first year of CS Phd in ML (more on the theory side) and I really like it. I think most of the places you would want to do a post doc in CS are probably going to be moderately high CoL. My phd is in a place with pretty low CoL (but a still a top 10-top 20 school (depending on who you ask) ) so the graduate stipend goes reasonably far. The other thing t…

I don't see a way to respond to your latest reply, but thank you for the recommendations! I'll take a look at them.

Re: Dear Academia, I loved you, but I’m leaving you (2014)

#52

Post by foobarian »

PAClearner wrote: post #47
account2 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am considering going into a CS PhD focusing in ML. The mid 40k-70k range was from quick google search I did for CS post docs in ML in lower cost of living areas where the cost of living is much lower than on the West Coast. I am trying to look at career prospects and weigh whether it makes sense to stay in academia or jump to industry (after I complete a PhD). If wages are closer to 60k-100k for post docs, then I m…

Well I would be happy to provide some context. I just finished my first year of CS Phd in ML (more on the theory side) and I really like it. I think most of the places you would want to do a post doc in CS are probably going to be moderately high CoL. My phd is in a place with pretty low CoL (but a still a top 10-top 20 school (depending on who you ask) ) so the graduate stipend goes reasonably far. The other thing t…

When evaluating the warnings from naysayers you have to keep in mind that CS is quite an outlier as far as backup career prospects go. I made it all the way to CS postdoc and every step of the way I had to keep swatting away industry recruiters waving wads of cash at me. I finally made the leap for other reasons but it was effortless. I think this is absolutely not how it works in other disciplines.

One exception I can think of is what I call "closet programmers," which are folks that work in various areas which rely on software such as experimental physics, astronomy, molecular biology. and end up mostly doing programming because they love it. We have a bunch of engineers like that and they are all excellent :-)

Re: Dear Academia, I loved you, but I’m leaving you (2014)

#53

Post by PAClearner »

foobarian wrote: post #52
PAClearner wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I would be happy to provide some context. I just finished my first year of CS Phd in ML (more on the theory side) and I really like it. I think most of the places you would want to do a post doc in CS are probably going to be moderately high CoL. My phd is in a place with pretty low CoL (but a still a top 10-top 20 school (depending on who you ask) ) so the graduate stipend goes reasonably far. The other thing t…

When evaluating the warnings from naysayers you have to keep in mind that CS is quite an outlier as far as backup career prospects go. I made it all the way to CS postdoc and every step of the way I had to keep swatting away industry recruiters waving wads of cash at me. I finally made the leap for other reasons but it was effortless. I think this is absolutely not how it works in other disciplines. One exception I c…

100% correct. I think we are both very lucky in that we are able to do fun science and chase our intellectual interests with a realistic and still fun safety net.

Also those closet programmers are always really fun to talk to since their problems and culture are breath of fresh air.

Re: Dear Academia, I loved you, but I’m leaving you (2014)

#54

Post by throwawayjava »

joefourier wrote: post #41
pasabagi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is, that leads to a society that's a bit like a sports car being driven by a nine-year-old. STEM and vocational stuff is great for getting to places fast. It's awful for making a society that can talk critically about where it's going. I say talk, and not 'think', because I don't think STEM people are bad at thinking about problems critically. I just think a lot of humanities is about developing a…

Do the humanities really succeed at accomplishing those goals? In my own college experience, the humanities courses I took mostly taught me how to parrot the professor's opinions, how to write long-winded dissertations with overly complicated language with the goal of appearing intelligent rather than being understood, and how to insert meaning into literary works that author likely never intended. And while I was ve…

If that's how you feel then why didn't you prioritize clear and cogent communication of your own thoughts when engaging with the course?

It sounds like you prioritized maxing your GPA per unit of effort instead of engaging with the material in the way that's most beneficial to you.

Why on earth would you ever write an essay that's just meaningless jargon to you? What on earth were you expecting to learn?

The same thing happens in STEM courses. Three examples:

1. Projects. If your project incorporates the professor's research priorities/interests you can get away with way less work, but will also get less out of the course.

2. Programming assignments in CS. Professors rarely assign open problems; they're almost always assigning variants of important solved problems. Students will often look up the paper or wiki article where the original solution was described and then copy the algorithm and/or proof. This often results in high marks for low levels of effort.

3. There's an even better analogy in Mathematics, where students sometimes learn how to parrot the structure/rhetoric in proofs instead of actually learning the mathematics. Professors often don't do a careful enough job grading and give these proofs high marks because they sound correct and are mostly correct. However, it's clear from a second glance that the student has no idea wtf they're saying.

Students prioritizing low-effort parroting instead of seriously engaging with the material is pervasive in CS and Mathematics.

Some of that blame lies with the professor, and when students never learn that parroting/memorization is bad, I guess that's a huge failure of the entire education system (K-12 through higher ed). But IMO students who know that's the game they are playing (e.g., writing jargon-laden essays instead of writing in a way that is true to their own voice) don't have a lot of room to then complain that all they learned was how to play the "max GPA for min effort" game...

Re: Dear Academia, I loved you, but I’m leaving you (2014)

#55

Post by WesleyLivesay »

Naga wrote: post #32
lgessler wrote: post #7

Looks like this poster was in STEM. The situation's even more bleak in the humanities--see for instance this Reddit thread[1]: > The humanities PhD is still a vocational degree to prepare students for a career teaching in academia, and there are no jobs. Do not get a PhD in history. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/96yf9h/monda...

It truly is a shame. I was seriously considering pursuing a PhD in history and one of my professors warned me against it. I ended up geting a degree in accounting and have not regretted anything.

Same here except I ended up in CS. Solid job prospects and I have found other ways to engage with my love of history

Re: Dear Academia, I loved you, but I’m leaving you (2014)

#56

Post by mehrdadn »

v_lisivka wrote: post #20
aluren wrote: post #3

Regarding "literally everyone does it" (fishing for results, removing negative ones, and so on): it's very true, and much more prevalent than what people think. Even at top-level universities with big shots. Especially at top-level universities with big shots. I know someone, upon entering a lab to do electronic microscopy, who found out that the image data her lab had written multiple papers on very high-impact jour…

Science is not when you publish something. Science is when at least two independent labs can reproduce your published result.

The issue I see with this is that it implies anyone who isn't doing work high-profile enough to get independent labs to try to reproduce it isn't doing science.

Re: Dear Academia, I loved you, but I’m leaving you (2014)

#57

Post by joefourier »

throwawayjava wrote: post #54
joefourier wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do the humanities really succeed at accomplishing those goals? In my own college experience, the humanities courses I took mostly taught me how to parrot the professor's opinions, how to write long-winded dissertations with overly complicated language with the goal of appearing intelligent rather than being understood, and how to insert meaning into literary works that author likely never intended. And while I was ve…

If that's how you feel then why didn't you prioritize clear and cogent communication of your own thoughts when engaging with the course? It sounds like you prioritized maxing your GPA per unit of effort instead of engaging with the material in the way that's most beneficial to you. Why on earth would you ever write an essay that's just meaningless jargon to you? What on earth were you expecting to learn? The same thi…

Clear and cogent communication of my own thoughts lead to me having lower grades. Lower grades lead to fewer opportunities - less chances of getting a scholarship, recommendation, access to certain programs, etc.

It depends on what you seek from university. Unfortunately at the undergraduate level, its role has largely shifted from a place of learning into a provider of credentials that act as a signal to employers. With the high cost of tuition (especially in the USA), you want a good return on your investment, not waste your time engaging with the material at the detriment of your chances of success.

It seems a far better strategy to maximize your GPA while spending the least possible amount of time on the assigned material, in order to have time to pursue your own interests and be able to more effectively learn the things you want to learn.

Re: Dear Academia, I loved you, but I’m leaving you (2014)

#58

Post by Fomite »

munin wrote: post #11
libeclipse wrote: post #8

The cause of the problems in academia is hinted at near the end: > the truth is I understand why they have to do things that way, if they don't get published, they don't get money to continue work that should theoretically be beneficial down the road! Scientists optimizing for what is likely to be published (read: what is likely to earn money), sacrificing elsewhere. Maybe if we payed them enough so that they don't h…

> Scientists optimizing for what is likely to be published (read: what is likely to earn money), sacrificing elsewhere. Maybe if we payed them enough so that they don't have to do this to survive, then we wouldn't have this issue. How do you do this in a society with scarce resources? With scarcity, you need to have a measure of success, otherwise everyone could just say they were a scientist and get a six figure sal…

It has been suggested that a lottery system for grant proposals would actually both work better and be more fair than our current system.

Re: Dear Academia, I loved you, but I’m leaving you (2014)

#59

Post by scott_s »

yodsanklai wrote: post #22

This is a recurring topic on HN. My (European) experience is that academia provides a great work environment. If you have tenure, you're free to work on whatever you want, you have very low pressure (beside the pressure you decide to inflict on yourself), you're basically paid to learn new things and teach them to others. You can easily visit other institutes abroad. You get to meet interesting people. Age discrimina…

Life is also pretty great if you win the lottery. But it's not wise to plan on it.

One of the main points brought up here and elsewhere is that getting a tenure-track position is hard: you're basically in a giant tournament. And that tournament continues to actually get tenure. So I don't disagree with you, but you're starting from the assumption that one has tenure, which is very much not a given for the vast majority of grad students.

(Yes, yes, I'm aware this is not strictly true and that many lottery winners end up declaring bankruptcy and often report being miserable. But it works as an illustration.)

Re: Dear Academia, I loved you, but I’m leaving you (2014)

#60

Post by throwawayjava »

joefourier wrote: post #57
throwawayjava wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's how you feel then why didn't you prioritize clear and cogent communication of your own thoughts when engaging with the course? It sounds like you prioritized maxing your GPA per unit of effort instead of engaging with the material in the way that's most beneficial to you. Why on earth would you ever write an essay that's just meaningless jargon to you? What on earth were you expecting to learn? The same thi…

Clear and cogent communication of my own thoughts lead to me having lower grades. Lower grades lead to fewer opportunities - less chances of getting a scholarship, recommendation, access to certain programs, etc. It depends on what you seek from university. Unfortunately at the undergraduate level, its role has largely shifted from a place of learning into a provider of credentials that act as a signal to employers.…

This post only reinforces my point: GPA hacking is an intentional choice on the part of students, and GPA hacking is not specific to the humanities.

You got nothing out of your humanities courses. The fault was not in your courses but in yourself. You certainly could have chosen to improve your prose, refine your theses, and strengthen the presentation of your arguments. Instead, you chose to GPA hack.

One of the great things about university is that you get what you put into it. Students who choose to invest in credentialism get credentials. Students who choose to invest in an education get an education. You got what you very explicitly chose to get!

The sad irony, by the way, is that your perceived downsides are rare and GPA hacking backfires. I have never heard of a faculty member refusing to write a letter for an engaged student just because they received a B or even a C; however, I've heard plenty of stories about faculty writing lackluster letters or even refusing to write letters for students who were very clearly GPA hacking.

Perhaps most importantly, your original post was written as an indict of humanities courses. In my post, I pointed out that GPA hacking is also possible in STEM fields. Your latest post justifies GPA hacking by appealing to the credential-granting role of higher education. Your argument justifies GPA hacking not only in the humanities but also in STEM fields.

A common saying in education is that cheaters mostly rob from themselves. IMO the same is true for GPA hackers.

One final tangential note about this excerpt from your post:

> With the high cost of tuition (especially in the USA), you want a good return on your investment, not waste your time engaging with the material at the detriment of your chances of success... It seems a far better strategy to maximize your GPA while spending the least possible amount of time on the assigned material, in order to have time to pursue your own interests and be able to more effectively learn the things you want to learn.

Doesn't this place you in a bit of a double bind? If you know better than the faculty, then GPA hacking isn't required because you already know the material. If you don't know better than the faculty, then it's very likely that you are frittering away your time on fads instead of focusing on fundamentals.

Post reply on HN