Live data from Hacker News

Academia is a cult?

washingtonpost.com

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: Academia is a cult?

#121
post #78
post #24

>It should come as no surprise that the professor who made that demand is a white male alumnus of the Ivy League, and the student an immigrant from a working-class background. I'm getting really tired of these kinds of racial and ethnic generalizations. If you substitute "asian" or "jew" in and you find it's racist, it's still racist if it says "white."

This comment breaks the HN guidelines, which ask you not to take threads on extraneous flamewar tangents. Especially a doozy like this one, which has burned and been picked over incessantly. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I see no flamewar here. In fact, the only one who seems to have a problem with this discussion is you.

There are a few low-quality comments, true. But these are mostly high-quality comments, relative to internet discourse on other websites.

You're making bad calls. And if the sole way for me to contribute to this site is to point this out to you, then at least it's an impactful contribution.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#122

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 dist…

Yeah, exactly. Specifically the bit where tenured faculty really need the cheap labor of PhD students, so they're incentivized to paint a rosy picture of the tenure-track prospects to encourage students to enter PhD programs -- "look at me! I achieved the dream!". Yet in reality the chance of these students reaching the tenure track are slim to none, and in fact the only way to be successful is by pulling more people into the pyramid below you to stand on.

Much like how successful MLM sellers are incentivized to bring more and more sellers into the program under them ("look at me! I achieved the dream!"), even though the chance of any of those new sellers actually becoming successful are slim to none, and in fact the only way to be successful is by pulling more people into the pyramid below you to stand on.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not really comparable at all. The "Social Text" affair was a major deal because "Social Text" was a major venue of postmodernism at the time, and it was a major cause of the fall of postmodernism in academia. Nobody was "fooled" by the Bogdanovs -- they were French TV personalities who managed to get a couple of bogus papers published in extremely low impact journals that hardly anyone read. Similarly with "Who's Afr…

Social Text wasn't a major venue (of postmodernism or anything else), and Sokal's hoax didn't cause a fall of postmodernism in academia. Far from it. When I left academia in 2009 it was still the dominant perspective, and that doesn't seem to have changed.

Fish's response to Sokal is also exemplary:

What sociologists of science say is that of course the world is real and independent of our observations but that accounts of the world are produced by observers and are therefore relative to their capacities, education, training, etc. It is not the world or its properties but the vocabularies in whose terms we know them that are socially constructed -- fashioned by human beings -- which is why our understanding of those properties is continually changing.

Distinguishing fact from fiction is surely the business of science, but the means of doing so are not perspicuous in nature -- for if they were, there would be no work to be done. Consequently, the history of science is a record of controversies about what counts as evidence and how facts are to be established.

Those who concern themselves with this history neither dispute the accomplishments of science nor deny the existence or power of scientific procedure. They just maintain and demonstrate that the nature of scientific procedure is a question continually debated in its own precincts. What results is an incredibly complex and rich story, full of honor for scientists, and this is the story sociologists of science are trying to tell and get right.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen math / physics majors make an easy transition into software development. I bet that is much easier to pull off than switching to programming from say, sociology.

Is this a regional thing? I've had interviewers inquire perplexedly from across the table as to why in the world someone with a mathematics degree was seeking a software development job. Do employers in some parts really salivate over green math/phys grads with not so much as a github profile? Or do these anecdata leave off some key arc to the story where the grad does something substantial to bridge the gap between…

Many employers don't care what your degree is as long as you can prove you can code what they need you to code.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#126
post #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…

Geologist here! It's not just CS, definitely true for us too. I can't speak for all fields, but I do know that the unemployment rate for science PhDs is virtually nil, and the industry demand is absolutely not restricted to software.

For us in the Earth sciences: mining, oil/gas, environmental remediation/consulting, and the national labs are all big employers for us.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#127
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're under the mistaken impression that there is a free market for postdoc positions. Postdoc salaries are fixed by government salary level tables and postdoc positions are opened as part of a planned economy. Plans range from 5 to 10 years. Moreover, universities are not companies and could not possibly be run like companies, and foundational research usually does not produce any consumable products. The effects o…

There are also huge variations between fields. Bio postdocs are hugely competitive and kinda brutal compared to my field, for instance.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#128
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is comparing apples to oranges. C and assembly are what most applications and operating systems are built on in one way or another. Classical music is not the root of popular music nor does it carry over to other music genres that much at all.

Also, the way that music is taught in band rooms, is based almost entirely on sheet music and nothing on actually creating music. In fact most of the people I know who were very good classical band players had very underdeveloped ears and sucked at music creation. If you program in C, you will become a better python/js/etc. programmer, the same can not be said for classical music.

Plus, most computer science programs have switched from starting with C to starting kids off on Java or Python, so that argument does not make any sense. Most public schools do not even teach anything other than jazz or classical music.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#129

Something that David Graeber said that opened my eyes. Until the 1970s or so, Universities were actually a guild for academics geared towards the production of knowledge. They had self rules, titles, apprenticeship systems, and to some degree the backing and protection of the state. Plus like a true medieval guild, they were run by the masters of the guild itself. Sure, they did not call themselves guilds, but in for…

Kinda yes, kinda no.

Education has been under constant evolution since its earlierst forms, though the change over the 20th century (in North America and Western Europe especially) has been profound, particularly in the first half of the 20th century. I'm going to wind back a bit further.

With the founding of the first European universities (1088, University of Bologna), education focused on the seven liberal arts, with degrees generally in administration, law, medicine, and divinity. Early on there was a divide between the liberal arts and the mechanical arts -- what we'd now call "technology" or "engineering", as well as various applied fields -- also known as the vulgar arts. The term doesn't carry the full derogatory sense of today, though these were considered far less honorable and privileged than the liberal arts. Most practical arts were taught within guilds, not at universities.

The liberal arts were divided amongst the trivium (from which: trivial): grammer, logic, and rhetoric, or roughly, input, processing, and output; and the quadrivium: maths, geometry, music, and astronomy, or numbers, numbers in space, numbers in time, and numbers in time and space.

Roll forward to about 1800 and Alexander von Humboldt was reforming the German university system with changes that largely reflect the modern system. The field of "philosophy" had long since been divided into its "natural" and "moral" fields, those were now starting to break out into the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, etc.) and social sciences (over the course of the 19th century): sociology, political science, political economy, psychology, and anthropology. The modern sense of majors was established by the 1880s or so, though it expanded much since then. In the last decades of the 19th century, areas such as English and Literature started becoming formalised as scholarly research rather than technical practice.

Technology was creating demands for specialised technical skills, while the university as a basis for cultural indoctrination was also recognised (John Stuart Mill writes on this at length, Jens Hanson has a good treatment of this).

By 1900, the high school graduation rate in the United States was about 5%. It helped greatly to be white, male, and not working-class. The high-school curriculum itself was comparable to at least the first year or two of a liberal arts college, with math, Latin, Greek, philosophy, literature, and other coursework. The PhD attainment level today is over twice that of high-school graduates in 1900.

Technical schools, of which M.I.T. was not the first but among the most significant, date to roughly 1860. Its course catalogue, to this day, is numbered in the order in which programmes were added to the curriculum, up through the first 12-15 entries, making for an interesting bit of anthropological evidence itself. By the 1920s, the term "publish or perish" was appearing in the context of academic publishing.

World wars 1 & 2 both proved the significance of science and technology, and Vannevar Bush in particular pushed for a vast expansion of higher education and research following his war work, with the launch of Sputnik in 1957 spurred this on. The GI bill accelerated this, and initiatives such as the California Master Plan for Higher Education and others elsewhere (the UK has a similar programme) in the late 1950s and early 1960s lead to a tremendous expansion of universities, along with the Baby Boom and (in the US) draft deferments for the Vietnam War. College enrollments and degree awards boomed. Disciplines within the letters and sciences (modern-day liberal arts) developed increasing degrees of specialisation and in the eyes of many, were increasingly divorced from practical realities. Government funding drove much research, especially in engineering and the sciences, but also in nontechnical fields.

The tide started to roll back in the 1970s with the oil shocks, economic malaise (far more severe in Britain than the US), and other factors, though tuition hikes were fairly modest until the late 1980s / early 1990s. Industry funding replaced some government monies. The glut of 1970s and later PhDs were hitting first slowed growth, then stasis, and finally decline in available academic positions. At the same time, advanced degrees in many areas proved of limited interest in themselves outside academia.

TL;DR: there were significant changes through the 1970s and 1980s, but they are better seen as part of a very large arc of development of higher education.

Re: Academia is a cult?

#130
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, it's the publishers that are to blame. I believe most scientist dont really care how it's published as long it is. The publishers run a pyramid scheme.

You can't blame the publishers for schools which are training people to be professors and little else at a rate 10x actually needed.

As far as i know, the publishers keep the bulk of the fees
Post reply on HN