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

An Aspiring Scientist’s Frustration with Modern-Day Academia

crypto.junod.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 170 posts

Re: An Aspiring Scientist’s Frustration with Modern-Day Academia

#81

Post by betterunix »

LordHumungous wrote: post #78
rayiner wrote: post #3

I wonder why we impart onto young people such an idealism about science only to have to crush it when they get older and must be informed that science, like everything else, is a business.

Science is not a business.

Modern science has become a business, complete with advertising, trade secrets (the old be sure you don't tell Dr. So-and-so anything about your work, his group is doing something similar and you might get scooped!), and various kinds of corruption. The scientific method is still hiding somewhere in there, but it ends where publish-or-perish begins.

Re: An Aspiring Scientist’s Frustration with Modern-Day Academia

#82

Post by betterunix »

auggierose wrote: post #20

I have worked at EPFL for a short time as as post-doc, and it really is a great school. Its Ph.D. students are excellent, and so what he says has to be taken seriously. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that much of how Academia works today is inevitable. How many people are truly excellent in any job? Always only a small percentage. Let's say that in Academia the percentage is especially high, as high as 20%…

"Let's say that in Academia the percentage is especially high, as high as 20%. What are the other 80% supposed to do?"

Collaborate with the excellent 20%? What is wrong with encouraging more collaboration between researchers? Why should the mediocre 80% be pressured into publishing low-quality, CV-padding papers when they could be working effectively with geniuses?

Re: An Aspiring Scientist’s Frustration with Modern-Day Academia

#83

Post by rogerchucker »

This is how my advisor and some of my family members try to convince me that choosing academia is wiser - they tell me that as a tenured faculty, (a) I will always be my own boss and (b) I will never get fired (unless of course the department gets dissolved which is not implausible). I wouldn't be surprised if this motivation works for most PhD graduates opting for academia.

Re: An Aspiring Scientist’s Frustration with Modern-Day Academia

#84

Post by betterunix »

dnautics wrote: post #28
irollboozers wrote: post #23

3 out of 6 of Microryza's current team are graduate school dropouts. Technically, you could add 1.5 more (Ethan Perlstein left academia, I never started), so 4.5 out of 6. We've all been there. I think you have to either be purposely oblivious or one of the extremely lucky ones blessed with a true research environment, but it is impossible for the new generation of scientists to not see the writing on the wall. Every…

while a PhD doesn't carry that much cachet anymore, doesn't that make 'PhD dropout' even worse? Isn't the impression then, that 'You couldn't finish even the lowered standards for the PhD' or 'You couldn't finish what you started' or 'You had the poor judgement to bite off something you couldn't handle'? I suppose the last isn't so bad given that the age that most Americans start grad school is just over 22

It could just as easily be, "Good thing you were smart enough to get out when you saw a bad thing," "Glad to see someone who sticks to their principles," or, "Let's put those skills you picked up over that 4 year period to use."

Re: An Aspiring Scientist’s Frustration with Modern-Day Academia

#85

Post by takluyver »

beloch wrote: post #47

This student makes some excellent points, and it's a bit scary how some things reinforce each other. Some journals, Nature being the most notable, chase impact factor above all else. The only thing they truly care about is that the papers they publish get cited. This means highly original work, which frequently doesn't get cited much for a long time, is less desirable than a turn-the-crank paper from a respected name…

That's interesting, because I've also seen the opposite problem in high impact journals, as in the Arsenic-based-life paper published in Science last year. The journal was keen to get a big dramatic story, and must have let it in with fairly minor peer review. Then it got roundly criticised after publication.

I hate the way we have to 'sell' research to compete for funding and prestigious publications. But my impression is that most researchers regard this as a necessary evil, not as their primary purpose. Maybe I've been lucky in my academic experiences (two UK universities, biology), but I met a lot of people who are still genuinely interested in the science. They play the salesman game, of course, because they have to, but they help their PhD students and postdocs, try to judge research from other groups objectively, and care about intellectual honesty. Some of the best are the emeritus professors, the ones who simply carried on researching instead of retiring.

Re: An Aspiring Scientist’s Frustration with Modern-Day Academia

#86

Post by solarmist »

betterunix wrote: post #69
beloch wrote: post #47

This student makes some excellent points, and it's a bit scary how some things reinforce each other. Some journals, Nature being the most notable, chase impact factor above all else. The only thing they truly care about is that the papers they publish get cited. This means highly original work, which frequently doesn't get cited much for a long time, is less desirable than a turn-the-crank paper from a respected name…

"As for the PhD student... There is more than meets the eye here. You don't walk away from 4 years of work in the last month without reason" Says who? Maybe this student has no interest in going into academia and does not see the point of completing a PhD program.

There's nothing wrong with what he said. Even you gave an alternative reason.

The student has a reason, we just don't know what it is.

Re: An Aspiring Scientist’s Frustration with Modern-Day Academia

#87

Post by eli_gottlieb »

rayiner wrote: post #3

I wonder why we impart onto young people such an idealism about science only to have to crush it when they get older and must be informed that science, like everything else, is a business.

I wonder why we impart onto grown adults such a cynicism about everything when deep down what we really want is to serve our ideals.

Re: An Aspiring Scientist’s Frustration with Modern-Day Academia

#88

Post by timr »

bithive123 wrote: post #77
timr wrote: post #64

It's kind of hard to get through this, not because the points ring untrue (I agree with many), but because they seem a bit naive. I think there's a certain type of person that is particularly attracted to advanced work in science and technology -- the systems purist, who believes strongly that the world "should" work in mostly objective ways. This is a strength in that the world doesn't change very much without these…

I see this a lot with new programmers that come to work for us. Many of them understandably think that some of our practices are obviously wrong and should be changed, but few of them figure out how to be effective in spite of the obvious correctness of their opinions.

Yep, agreed. It's a youthful affliction, and it isn't specific to PhD programs.

Time either beats it out of you, or you become this very pathetic, unfortunate sort of character as you get older. There are few things sadder than adults who blame the world for being insufficient for their needs.

Re: An Aspiring Scientist’s Frustration with Modern-Day Academia

#89

Post by jurassic »

LordHumungous wrote: post #78
rayiner wrote: post #3

I wonder why we impart onto young people such an idealism about science only to have to crush it when they get older and must be informed that science, like everything else, is a business.

Science is not a business.

Running a research group is a lot like running a small business from the professor's point of view. You have employees (grad students, lab managers) and equipment/supply/rent(overhead) costs that you use to produce a product (research, in the form of papers). You produce these products on a kind of account basis (not a per-paper basis), but if you aren't producing enough when it's time to re-up with your funding agency you lose that grant revenue. When the revenue situation gets bleak due to either mismanagement or the funding climate (sequester, anybody?), you can even "go out of business" and have to close your lab. Even though professors are paid by the university and not out of grants, it's doom for your tenure case if your lab goes into the red.

Re: An Aspiring Scientist’s Frustration with Modern-Day Academia

#90

Post by dnautics »

rhythmvs wrote: post #54
dnautics wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while your characterization rings true for academia, I hardly believe that those attributes are the provenance of MBAs. The irony is that we are in an age of scientism (as Feynman would say) and it's precisely the popularization of science itself that has led to 'pseudo-measurability' that you speak of. I remember chuckling that my humanities classes were grading essays via mathematical rubric at a time when the math…

You probably hit the nail with the popularization of science as the culprit for our captains-of-society’s obsession with measurability. And even more so with the institutionalized greed of law school sycophants. I don’t know about the role of the business schools — maybe I’m to harsh for my colleagues. But I noted that at least at my alma mater and its acquisitioned satellite colleges, the managerial caste consists o…

on reflection, I don't think the problem is popularization, so much as "authoritization". For whatever reason we like to put authoritative power in numbers. Although I disagree with his overall thesis and politics, David Graeber, in "Debt: the first 5000 years" really does identify this psychological tendency. (I think the solution is to free people from those shackles instead of giving in to it and trying to craft a solution that avoids it)
Post reply on HN