Live data from Hacker News

Goodbye Academia

anothersb.blogspot.co.uk

101–110 of 217 posts

Re: Goodbye Academia

#101
post #96
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a PhD in computer science, and I landed a research job in industry where I get to do both research and development. So, half production, half academia. I consider myself extraordinarily lucky. I can point to many different instances of luck that enabled me to be where I am now. Hard work and talent are a given, but among those that work hard and are talented, there's a lot of blind luck that determines who gets…

Research in CS (and math) is 'cheap' compared to research in say, chemistry, physics, or biology. Pencil, paper, and maybe some Amazon EC2 time as opposed to a bunch of lab equipment and other materials.

And research in the humanities is even cheaper and you see how well their doing.

Re: Goodbye Academia

#102
post #34

Trying to become a successful academic seems about as insane as trying to become a rock star. Here's Peter Higgs on the subject of how academics today compares to the past: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-b... Most people I know who went down the academic route have left the world or are seriously thinking about leaving. I know a couple people with positions at top universities, and around…

Great article, thanks.

Re: Goodbye Academia

#103
Loved your article - inspiring and I can definitely see your point! Sharing my personal experience I left academia a year ago (leaving a promising neuroinformatics career) to what it seems crazy starting my own company! I now make at Lear ten times more money that what I used to make, I work only half weekends, I can sleep at night without the Need of drinking alcohol before bed ( yes it was necessary with the stress of publications) and I enjoy my friends and family! I don't know if company will go well but I know I am now happy! Very well done to you and good luck x

Re: Goodbye Academia

#104
post #101
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research in CS (and math) is 'cheap' compared to research in say, chemistry, physics, or biology. Pencil, paper, and maybe some Amazon EC2 time as opposed to a bunch of lab equipment and other materials.

And research in the humanities is even cheaper and you see how well their doing.

I'm not sure I follow.

I was just making an offhand remark about how R&D gigs in industry for math/cs might be 'easier' to come by because their salary doesn't necessarily compete with lab costs.

Re: Goodbye Academia

#105

These kinds of things are daily discussions in laboratories all over the world. Everyone knows there's no future in academia, and so everyone is looking for an exit plan. I actively discourage people from doing a PhD. Academia is a horrible feudalistic system that doesn't pay well enough to keep the bright minds it attracts. There is no sense in being a post-doc for life. Much better to take that hedge fund job. The…

After my Ph.D., I went to a startup doing biofuels (Joule Unlimited), and then came back to academia to do a postdoc, and again it was difficult to decide between industry and academia. In the end, I chose to stay in academia because many of my goals in biotech will require a lot of fundamental research before they are able to attract angel/venture funding.

As a new assistant professor (as of two months ago), I do have to apply for lots of grants, but in the end, the funding is not so bleak that it's hopeless (got our first grant last week). It does however require me to pick and choose only the most promising projects that can produce results in the near-ish term (2-3 years) and apply technologies we are developing for the larger end-goals to problems in human health and disease. I think that's a fair tradeoff for now. I think we will be able to do the longer-term projects more slowly on the side as well as interface with startups and companies to attack commercial problems where it makes sense.

The problems we face today are because we hit a steady-state in funding, rather than continuing to grow as we've done over previous decades. One can argue we should continue to grow, but at some point we are going to hit a steady-state again and the situation will be the same. There are many interesting proposals on how best to reach a better structure for steady-state funding, but in the end, hard decisions like the one the OP made are going to continue being just that; hard decisions. I think the positive of the whole thing is that there are other options that grad students/post-docs can now consider in biology that aren't a tenure-track position, and that overall is a good thing.

Re: Goodbye Academia

#106
post #90
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogy does not make sense. I know many colleagues who got into academia and were able to find plenty of funding. It wasn't a lucky break that helped them, but hard work and talent. The system is far from perfect, but it is not 'feudal', etc. as the parent comment claims. Systematic hard work can get you results in academia. From what I understand about show-biz, it requires a lot more than just talent and hard…

I got a PhD in computer science, and I landed a research job in industry where I get to do both research and development. So, half production, half academia. I consider myself extraordinarily lucky. I can point to many different instances of luck that enabled me to be where I am now. Hard work and talent are a given, but among those that work hard and are talented, there's a lot of blind luck that determines who gets…

This is not about the philosophical debate of luck vs. effort. In my opinion, show-biz vs. academia analogy is not valid (Though there are no Jaden Smith's in academia, I won't use that as a counter-example. Doing so would perpetuate this analogy.). The metrics on which actors are judge are fuzzy and subjective at best, and spurious at worst. Academics, OTOH, (excluding China and a few other offenders) are mostly judged justly- whether in grant applications or in job applications or for tenure.

Re: Goodbye Academia

#107
This is so dead on. I recently left my post-doc position from a top school, and it evoked such a reaction of "take me with you" from my fellow labmates when I was leaving. The hopelessness is palpable in a lot of grad students/post-docs. Everyone seems to be shopping for a way out. Sad, but very true...

Re: Goodbye Academia

#108
My girlfriend right now is trying to figure out her postdoc in neuroscience.

While I fully support her passion, the industry of academia seems completely irrational from almost every sense and full of traps. While the end goal of a tenured professor is exceedingly stable, getting there requires heroic acts of risk, going with the flow and instability that even when compared with the world of startups seems insane.

After 4-7 years on a PhD (which is fraught with the possibility of your PI losing funding, vets shutting you down for weeks on end, the university messing up shipping of things that need to stay frozen, strange policies of academic journals, endless bureaucracy, the university threatening to cancel health insurance or not pay you for a few months despite them wanting you to work) you exit with the ability to make less money at a Postdoc than you had with just your undergraduate degree, and certainly less than you'd make if you had just stayed as a lab tech for that term.

In admission to a Postdoc program, you've gotta deal with PIs who seem to check their email in more archaic ways than RMS and seem to play games with you with their intermittent responsiveness. The chances of you getting into a place doing the research you'd like in a geographic region that has any semblance of culture or livability. Of course, all the pitfalls of your PhD are still present, as funding is constantly on the brink and your PI might die or retire without notice- which essentially ends your academic career.

Then maybe after a postdoc (or two), you find a tenure track position (again, where this is... you seem to have little control over), which also seems to pay crap considering the amount of knowledge and experience you have.

All of these funnels seem to have a 20:1 (or worse) completion rate. Something always seems to screw up. Fortunately, my girlfriend is almost done with the PhD part, and the Postdoc part is looking more promising than it is for most.

Whatever relationships, life, family or culture you'd like to maintain through this seem nearly impossible. Now, I'm aware that 'softer' subjects are a little more flexible on parts of this. You don't need a lab with a half million a year funding to write the next great american novel or study the culture of people on 4Chan.

In comparison, startups seem much more certain. Move to SF|Boston|NYC, program awesome things, get funding, etc... no one's going to ask you suddenly to move to Alabama to work with the one startup in the US that does Haskell programming, but in science academia that's entirely possible. Worst case scenario, you go work for Google or similar. And after working for 10 years, they aren't going to pay you barely livable wages.

Unless you're running a center (which probably less than 0.1% of people entering into a PhD program ever will), the monetary reward almost never catches up. The risk of failure is high, and the alternatives for leaving are grim. Whereas if you leave your CS PhD, you can get a job at a startup... there are few places that are dying to hire PhD dropouts.

Re: Goodbye Academia

#109

These kinds of things are daily discussions in laboratories all over the world. Everyone knows there's no future in academia, and so everyone is looking for an exit plan. I actively discourage people from doing a PhD. Academia is a horrible feudalistic system that doesn't pay well enough to keep the bright minds it attracts. There is no sense in being a post-doc for life. Much better to take that hedge fund job. The…

"Much better to take that hedge fund job."

Unfortunately, not every PhD student can expect to get a well-paid job outside academia.

Re: Goodbye Academia

#110
I turned down an opportunity to do a really interesting Ph.D in machine learning / biologically-inspired computation because I wasn't either willing or able to take the vow of poverty required. Since then I've consistently made many times what most scientists make doing programming and even IT work that is far below my abilities.

Basic research is economically worthless-- you can't patent a concept or a law of nature, nor can you sell understanding of nature's principles to anyone. The transistor may be worth billions, but the understanding that enabled the transistor is worth $0 as there is no way to monetize it.

The economic worth of scientific understanding seems to obey an extreme hockey-stick graph: it is worthless until it nears the instant of delivering a marketable technology, at which point it skyrockets. As a result, the market only rewards the last few people in a very long line of innovation that began with basic principles. Mark Zuckerberg is worth billions. How much is Tim Berners-Lee worth? How about the communications theorists before him that pioneered the idea of hypertext? (Do we even know who they were?) ... and so on, with each step back in time being worth exponentially less.

Why do science, except as a hobby?

Post reply on HN