Live data from Hacker News

Academia is a cult?

washingtonpost.com

81–90 of 135 posts

Re: Academia is a cult?

#81

As a counter to this article I found my time as a grad student exceedingly productive and gave me great faith in the scientific institution. I definitely believe academics are underpaid; when most of the people in my department could have easy made 500k doing ML in the valley, they were making less than 100k as post docs or 30k as grad students. Otherwise my advisors were always incredibly proud of their students, pa…

They aren’t underpaid. Tenured professors have the ultimate job security. They also get paid sabbaticals which is fairly rare in the real world. Adjunct professors on the other hand — those are definitely underpaid, but they’re often doing that work as a side job or they’re trying to fight their way to tenure. A job from which you can’t be fired? That’s worth something. Stellar benefits? That’s worth something as wel…

"Adjunct professors on the other hand — those are definitely underpaid, but they’re often doing that work as a side job or they’re trying to fight their way to tenure."

This is like saying that it's OK that a job is paid poorly because the jobs are part-time. Or that it's OK to pay someone less for a second job because it is a second job. Or one group less than another group because obviously they don't need the money.

Underpaid is underpaid. It doesn't matter what the reasoning is. Especially if you are getting paid less than the "full time" or "permanent" person simply because you aren't "full time". I'll also argue in the case of tenured professors: Job security isn't everything, nor is a sabbatical - and IIRC, fewer places are even offering tenure as often. The adjunct professors have little hope.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#82

As a counter to this article I found my time as a grad student exceedingly productive and gave me great faith in the scientific institution. I definitely believe academics are underpaid; when most of the people in my department could have easy made 500k doing ML in the valley, they were making less than 100k as post docs or 30k as grad students. Otherwise my advisors were always incredibly proud of their students, pa…

The author appears to be talking about comparative literature exclusively. It’s truly a misleading title.

Comparative literature (or “critical theory” or “dept of rhetoric” or whatever fanciful name they’re using) is indeed the cultiest field of academia. It’s why they’re so easy to punk. (See: Sokal affairs.)

Re: Academia is a cult?

#83
I don't know the source but I first read the following useful distinction here in HN:

The difference between a cult and a religion: a cult wants it all, a religion just wants its cut.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#84

As a counter to this article I found my time as a grad student exceedingly productive and gave me great faith in the scientific institution. I definitely believe academics are underpaid; when most of the people in my department could have easy made 500k doing ML in the valley, they were making less than 100k as post docs or 30k as grad students. Otherwise my advisors were always incredibly proud of their students, pa…

They aren’t underpaid. Tenured professors have the ultimate job security. They also get paid sabbaticals which is fairly rare in the real world. Adjunct professors on the other hand — those are definitely underpaid, but they’re often doing that work as a side job or they’re trying to fight their way to tenure. A job from which you can’t be fired? That’s worth something. Stellar benefits? That’s worth something as wel…

Every post-doc position is wildly over-subscribed and there is fierce competition for each one. So simple economics - the law of supply and demand - says they are not underpaid, in fact if anything they are paid over the clearing price for the market.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#85

Yes, humanities academia is severely flawed, not only in the ways that the author describes but also in the prevalence of pseudo-intellectual quackery in literature studies, cultural studies and areas of social sciences, philosophy, etc. The newspaper appears to have forgotten to qualify the title to make clear that they were not talking about all academia.

A lot of biomedical science is also barely worth of the name science as it's not reproducible. And I'm sure you could find the same in physics and math too. But it's way easier to look at the humanities, not being able to understand the language used due to not having the required background and go "clearly it's worthless because I, someone with a degree in a completely different field, cannot understand it". And then endlessly point at the Sokal affaire.

But at least one time a nonsense mathematical paper, written by a computer, was accepted for publication. So clearly mathematics is a flawed, worthless field worthy only of derision, right? And a few nonsense computer science papers have also been accepted, so clearly also a worthless field.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#86
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get this. Why aren't kids taught music just for the sake of it instead of for a career? You most likely have mastery by not doing it "full-time" but at least you will enjoy it and get to a point where yo would be able to play it socially and enjoyably!

Well, if you want to teach kids music that they actually enjoy and that will be more applicable to this generation, focus on pop music, rap music, hip hop, any popular music genre. Hip hop and R&B are the most popular genres of music in the US [1], classical music and jazz are the least popular genres of music [2]. Why are we still teaching classical and jazz over genres more popular, enjoyable, and accessible? It is…

Why are we still teaching assemby and C over development languages more popular, enjoyable, and accessible? It is not a good career path, it is not popular with kids or with the masses, and it is a lot more expensive than any other genre of software development.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#87

I prefer to think of it as more of a MLM or pyramid scheme than a cult.

MLM you say?

Ok, let me see

- peddling in private homes (friends and family)? check!

- using social connections as marketing channel (classmates, friends and family)? check!

- promising benefits, while customers have to pay upfront and wait years for see their investment (never) pay off? check!

- turning customers to promoters (work environments turn away applicants without XYZ degree)? check!

- kick-back/ROI is distributed in ways that are "opaque" at best for customers? check!

Re: Academia is a cult?

#88
post #82

As a counter to this article I found my time as a grad student exceedingly productive and gave me great faith in the scientific institution. I definitely believe academics are underpaid; when most of the people in my department could have easy made 500k doing ML in the valley, they were making less than 100k as post docs or 30k as grad students. Otherwise my advisors were always incredibly proud of their students, pa…

The author appears to be talking about comparative literature exclusively. It’s truly a misleading title. Comparative literature (or “critical theory” or “dept of rhetoric” or whatever fanciful name they’re using) is indeed the cultiest field of academia. It’s why they’re so easy to punk. (See: Sokal affairs.)

The sciences haven't done any better at quality control than the humanities. See: Bogdanov affair, "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?", etc.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#89

As a counter to this article I found my time as a grad student exceedingly productive and gave me great faith in the scientific institution. I definitely believe academics are underpaid; when most of the people in my department could have easy made 500k doing ML in the valley, they were making less than 100k as post docs or 30k as grad students. Otherwise my advisors were always incredibly proud of their students, pa…

I see this coming up on HN from time to time: happy current or recent CS grad student implicitly generalizing their experience to academia at large. The thing to keep in mind is that CS is a rare exception: it's relatively well funded and there is real demand for it from outside academia (the two things are not unrelated, of course). ML in particular is often said to have a "brain drain" problem. So obviously you can't treat people like serfs; if you try to, they'll just leave for a better private sector job.

Most academic fields are nothing like that. As a rule of thumb, cultism ~ 1 / (external demand).

Re: Academia is a cult?

#90
post #83

I don't know the source but I first read the following useful distinction here in HN: The difference between a cult and a religion: a cult wants it all, a religion just wants its cut.

That's an amusing saying, because it conjures images of a struggle, in which there's somewhere something that is greedy and something that seeks fairness. What is the struggle about, i.e. what is that "all" that the greedy actor wants?

I think it doesn't matter, because this saying is just a threatrical way of saying that we define a cult as an organization in the religious world that we find to be uncooperative, asocial, greedy, mean, yada yada, -- something we don't like.

Further, religion just wants its cut? There's an implicit entitlement there. Why?

I started out saying this saying is amusing, but, man, am I finishing on the opposite note.

Post reply on HN