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

T-Shaped People and Academia

bastian.rieck.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 135 posts

Re: T-Shaped People and Academia

#41

Post by xmprt »

mehrdada wrote: post #12
throwawaygh wrote: post #7

>Setting up a suitable build system. Writing some unit tests for the code. Creating a skeleton of the models that are to be developed. Designing nice mock-ups or logos. Creating animations or graphics for presentations. I actively advise students against joining labs like this and consider the whole enterprise unethical. I raise concerns whenever I'm reviewing grant proposals by folks who run their labs like this. I'…

> They are taking a huge financial opportunity cost to work on uniquely high leverage problems. Maintaining your research group's build system is not what they signed up for. Not necessarily an opportunity cost. Often they are paid in a more valuable commodity, i.e. visas.

If someone just wants a visa, then it's much easier to get a quick and easy masters instead of doing a PhD with 5 years of research.

Re: T-Shaped People and Academia

#42

Post by BeetleB »

Topolomancer wrote: post #29
throwawaygh wrote: post #7

>Setting up a suitable build system. Writing some unit tests for the code. Creating a skeleton of the models that are to be developed. Designing nice mock-ups or logos. Creating animations or graphics for presentations. I actively advise students against joining labs like this and consider the whole enterprise unethical. I raise concerns whenever I'm reviewing grant proposals by folks who run their labs like this. I'…

Author here—thanks for these comments! I realise that this is a valid take, but it's not what I had in mind. Being based in European academia salaries for Ph.D. students and other personnel are more or less fixed (of course, going to industry, this is not the case). I certainly do not want to exploit students. My observation is that modern machine learning research entails so many additional moving parts (most, but n…

> Being based in European academia salaries for Ph.D. students and other personnel are more or less fixed

And this may depend where in Europe, but they get paid more than in the US, and also tend to get full benefits.

At least those that I knew in Denmark/Belgium were. They were not even classified as students, but as full time employees. Doing PhD research was their job.

Re: T-Shaped People and Academia

#43

Post by mehrdada »

xmprt wrote: post #41
mehrdada wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are taking a huge financial opportunity cost to work on uniquely high leverage problems. Maintaining your research group's build system is not what they signed up for. Not necessarily an opportunity cost. Often they are paid in a more valuable commodity, i.e. visas.

If someone just wants a visa, then it's much easier to get a quick and easy masters instead of doing a PhD with 5 years of research.

Maybe--very much depends on the source and destination country. Fact on the ground is lots of people have ended up choosing that as their path, optimal or not.

You can master-out in the middle of a PhD program, which is frowned upon, but it is difficult to get funding if you directly apply for a masters degree.

Perhaps the solution is to decrease the negative cultural backlash against predisposed intention of leaving with a masters despite applying for a PhD, which is currently seen as some sort of betrayal of the adviser if you are going to have your grad students do boring work. It'll be a win-win deal in that case.

Re: T-Shaped People and Academia

#44

Post by Topolomancer »

throwawayjd wrote: post #35
throwawaygh wrote: post #7

>Setting up a suitable build system. Writing some unit tests for the code. Creating a skeleton of the models that are to be developed. Designing nice mock-ups or logos. Creating animations or graphics for presentations. I actively advise students against joining labs like this and consider the whole enterprise unethical. I raise concerns whenever I'm reviewing grant proposals by folks who run their labs like this. I'…

I'm such a `force multiplier` as you mentioned. I'm in the gap between genetic programming, machine learning. It's very hard to have skills across biology, math and programming, and unfortunately, I'm someone who has to have all three to join my prestigious lab, whilst my peers are significantly less skilled than me. I feel grad school is kind of a scam for us immigrants because locals who have good recommendation le…

Author here---maybe you find my response to the parent post interesting. What you are describing is something I also experienced: a good name can open a lot of doors for you, and academia is certainly not as meritocratic as people might think it is.

I read some anger and disenchantment in your comment. Feel free to reach out in order to get another perspective on your situation. In any case, without knowing the specifics of your situation, and being a more or less anonymous internet stranger providing unsolicited advice, I would suggest you don't do anything hasty. Getting a PhD can be useful in certain domains; at the same time, if you are not engaged and---dare I say it---happy with your overall situation, it might be time to move on.

Whatever you do: the world is big and, with a little bit of luck and foresight, there are additional opportunities to be found! Best of luck to you :-)

Re: T-Shaped People and Academia

#45

Post by Topolomancer »

lmeyerov wrote: post #20
throwawaygh wrote: post #7

>Setting up a suitable build system. Writing some unit tests for the code. Creating a skeleton of the models that are to be developed. Designing nice mock-ups or logos. Creating animations or graphics for presentations. I actively advise students against joining labs like this and consider the whole enterprise unethical. I raise concerns whenever I'm reviewing grant proposals by folks who run their labs like this. I'…

I've been on the other end of such reviewers. Building community and engaging in it takes a whole ton of seemingly non-core work, but community-of-practice research is totally a thing, and for folks who empirically study innovation, one of the best approaches in practice. Likewise, it's common wisdom by systems researchers to invest in platform early to get compounding results later. Two of my best projects, include…

Author here---I love the term 'non-core work.' It encompasses a lot of the things that irk me in academia (and it's a little bit hypocritical because in the end, academic projects also benefit quite a lot from this non-core work...at least, if your goal is to build something that people actually want to use, as opposed to just pushing out papers.)

PS: And upon writing this comment, I had the epiphany that 'pushing out papers' might indeed be the primary objective for some. :-|

Re: T-Shaped People and Academia

#46

Post by Topolomancer »

BeetleB wrote: post #42
Topolomancer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here—thanks for these comments! I realise that this is a valid take, but it's not what I had in mind. Being based in European academia salaries for Ph.D. students and other personnel are more or less fixed (of course, going to industry, this is not the case). I certainly do not want to exploit students. My observation is that modern machine learning research entails so many additional moving parts (most, but n…

> Being based in European academia salaries for Ph.D. students and other personnel are more or less fixed And this may depend where in Europe, but they get paid more than in the US, and also tend to get full benefits. At least those that I knew in Denmark/Belgium were. They were not even classified as students, but as full time employees. Doing PhD research was their job.

Yes, precisely! And I should stress that the students I hire as PhD students are hired as exactly that. No strings attached, no additional duties, etc. They are free to focus on their research. My point in the article was more to put a finger on the fact that there is 'core work' (papers, papers, papers!!!) in academia and 'non-core work.' The latter is rewarded less, in my experience, even though it's a prerequisite to get the former done.

Re: T-Shaped People and Academia

#47

Post by zomglings »

Topolomancer wrote: post #34
zomglings wrote: post #23

This article points out yet ANOTHER way in which modern academia is rendering itself obsolete. Let academia die the miserable death it deserves. Let us instead focus our efforts on building its replacements rather than participate in this research funding gangbang of society. Because, make no mistake, we are all paying for this garbage. For replacements: 1. We need systems meant to EDUCATE goddamnit. (e.g. Khan Acade…

Author here; thanks for this interesting take! What makes you arrive at the conclusion that the research funding is garbage? I am seeing this more as a problem in terms of providing hires with the wrong incentives. The replacements you mention fall exactly into that category: depending on where you are working, your teaching/outreach/educational aspects might actually count against you when it comes to advancing your…

My biggest problems with university research and its funding (speaking as an academic failure):

1. The grant system overly rewards proposals that grant givers can understand to have a high chance of success. This creates an echo chamber of what kind of research gets funded.

2. The acceptance of mafias based on mutual back-scratching. The dynamics of funding into these mafias.

3. The cut of research funding claimed by universities as operational costs. (How much of your grant money goes to your university as overhead?)

The French Academy of Sciences used to run a mathematical grand prix (in the 18th and 19th centuries... maybe not anymore?) where they would put out a call for essays about a particular problem (e.g. the three body problem) and award a substantial prize to the winning essay. I like that kind of setup more, and I think there could be room for a parallel funding system where private companies or groups of interested individuals offer funding for targeted research using this kind of grand prix methodology.

I was not criticizing academic research for not happening in the public, was merely stating that that should also be a property of the new system.

Also, the same institutions should not be responsible both for education and for research. The objectives are clearly not aligned.

Re: T-Shaped People and Academia

#48

Post by Topolomancer »

throwawayarnty wrote: post #38
Topolomancer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here---I was thinking about actual design work or working on the 'presentation' aspects of a publication. For me, the development of new experimental techniques and new ML models is more or less the same. Could you elaborate? (but you are spot on: the breadth of my skills depends on your Zoom level...I am only a lowercase t at best :D)

Nice to hear from you! I guess for me it is assumed that one who does the work can also communicate the work in various forms (text, formal presentations, informal discussions). Perhaps it requires separate skills? But to me they sound like a continuation along the same "I". When one hears a nice talk from (what I would call) an "I" researcher, it is usually communicated well, but the techniques and scientific questi…

Ah, I think I see the distinction now! :-)

I was thinking more in terms of skills that translate between different projects, such as the large degree of software engineering skills that help in every ML project. I realise that this is a relatively narrow definition of 'T,' and yours is much, much larger.

Science is definitely benefiting from all types of researchers; I was just observing that some hiring committees ignore non-core aspects of research in CVs, focusing only on the publication output.

> I imagine a T-shaped person excels in wet-lab experiments to generate quality data as well as in analysis/modeling skills to put the data into a quantitative framework.

Couldn't agree more! And often, at least in my observation, it's better to have someone who is a 'jack of some trades' here...

> I also want to make it clear that I don't consider "I" or "T" any better than the others. We need both in science to progress. Perhaps our definitions of "I" and "T" differ slightly.

Absolutely :-) And thanks for pointing out these differences in definition! Goes to show that I am living in my own little bubble...

Re: T-Shaped People and Academia

#49

Post by throwaway1183 »

There are people for whom PhD is worth. If you are those people don't read this. It's easily knowable if you are or not.

Now for people like me:

Give me at least a million USD to invest in next PhD in CS. The most BS form of PhD is PhD in CS. It chirps your life away, with no clear benefits. It doesn't scale well enough in a field where innovation is rapidly progressing. Also when you are being underpaid while working for someone else's vision. You can't do what you want, because "supervisor" may not like it.

And once you come out of your PhD, who is going to hire you? Industry or academia? Well even in academia, there are tons of PhD already, so goodluck competing that.

And in industry goodluck finding that sweet industry that requires research.

I was always sold by the dream that PhD gives time and opportunity to involve in high leverage problems. Turns out it is a just another churn. What value does this paper bring? Nothing.

When most of valuable work is being done in industry and groups collaborating across nations. And to be in such group, you have to have background. (People whom I mentioned earlier)

Instead of wasting 5 yrs on CS Phd, invest on one single company. That will bring value x10 than stupid PhD.

Re: T-Shaped People and Academia

#50

Post by mehrdada »

throwawayjd wrote: post #37
mehrdada wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are taking a huge financial opportunity cost to work on uniquely high leverage problems. Maintaining your research group's build system is not what they signed up for. Not necessarily an opportunity cost. Often they are paid in a more valuable commodity, i.e. visas.

That's definitely not the case, given the long queues (and low chances) for H1B and high barrier for O1 visas. I might as well get an L1 working in industry after all.

I would be less than "definitely sure" about that. I know lots of folks firsthand whose primary motivation were that. This is obviously very country-dependent. If you are in a country with presence of say FAANG offices, sure you'd go for L1 or EB1C. Not everyone is that privileged. Not to mention during the Trump era, F1 visa was one of the only exempted ways to get your foot in the door for various countries.

(There's also OPT, btw, which is critical in the process, and H1B lottery chance, assuming a US Masters degree, was more than 50% last time I looked at it a couple years ago. O1 (and even EB1A/B) are not that rare for well-published PhDs, and EB2-NIW is quite easy for any PhD worth their salt, I'd say.)

Post reply on HN