Academia's 1% • Hacker News Board

Re: Academia's 1%

#111

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 10:24 PM UTC

egocodedinsol wrote: post #97

lordnacho wrote: post #59

There is a signalling/game mechanic that explains this sort of thing: 1) You have some rare ability that is distributed unevenly (Research skill, football skill) 2) There's certain brands that are imperfectly connected to the distribution of ability (Harvard, Man Utd) 3) You can hire a guy who looks to have the ability minus the brand, and he'll be cheap (Easier to lure, lower weekly salary). Once in a while, someone…

I'm not sure, but I'd bet that the best institutions actually don't care where their applicants come from. They can afford to just choose the best. It's the so-so places that have to signal their quality by 'hiring the best'. I've seen this in graduate school applications - students with poor marks often stand a better chance of admittance in a top program than a so-so one.

[deleted]

Re: Academia's 1%

#112

Post by IndianAstronaut » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 10:29 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #22

I applied for a PhD at an average school, passed the qualifying exam. But after a couple years found a full time programming job and didn't finish. Looking back family and friends were upset at me for not finishing, but I think it was a bullet I dodged. Having to look for research position at a company or getting stuck fighting for tenure position at some even less than average school in the middle of nowhere would n…

I did the same. Bailed out in the middle of my science Phd to programming. Most of my peers who finished their degrees are asking me how to jump into the field.

Re: Academia's 1%

#113

Post by ibrahima » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 11:36 PM UTC

egocodedinsol wrote: post #97

lordnacho wrote: post #59

There is a signalling/game mechanic that explains this sort of thing: 1) You have some rare ability that is distributed unevenly (Research skill, football skill) 2) There's certain brands that are imperfectly connected to the distribution of ability (Harvard, Man Utd) 3) You can hire a guy who looks to have the ability minus the brand, and he'll be cheap (Easier to lure, lower weekly salary). Once in a while, someone…

I'm not sure, but I'd bet that the best institutions actually don't care where their applicants come from. They can afford to just choose the best. It's the so-so places that have to signal their quality by 'hiring the best'. I've seen this in graduate school applications - students with poor marks often stand a better chance of admittance in a top program than a so-so one.

> I've seen this in graduate school applications - students with poor marks often stand a better chance of admittance in a top program than a so-so one.

Well, that's probably deceptive, as those guys are probably exceptional in other ways (publications as an undergrad, other research, etc) which takes away from their grades, or they only cared about certain classes which were important to their field.

Re: Academia's 1%

#114

Post by ChrisLomont » Sun, Mar 08, 2015, 12:06 AM UTC

east2west wrote: post #32

williamstein wrote: post #5

[Disclaimer: I'm part of that 1% she is talking about, since I'm tenured faculty in Mathematics at University of Washington, with "Harvard" on my resume due to my first job being there. http://wstein.org ] The author says: "The most prestigious universities – the Ivy League, University of Chicago, Stanford University, the University of California system – tend to lie in the most expensive parts of the country. Even w…

You may not realize this but because you worked hard for your position you believe you are entitled to it and the system that promoted you is near perfect. The reality is not so. I have been to UC Berkeley, where the average faculty is far more interested in gaming the system than making real contribution to science. They orbit around "famous" people, co-author papers with "big wigs," be co-PI with well connected peo…

>Scientific breakthroughts historically do not favor top rate institutions.

What proof of this do you have? Quick looks over Nobel Prizes, Fields Medals, or even lists of top scientific breakthroughs demonstrate that top rate universities do produce far more scientific breakthroughs than other universities.

Re: Academia's 1%

#115

Post by untilHellbanned » Sun, Mar 08, 2015, 12:51 AM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #86

Here's how to understand academia. When you're 22, almost everything you've done has been measured in relative terms to your peers (in part, because almost no one at that age has real accomplishments by adult standards, except in athletics; so it's a favorable curve). You think that the world is more competitive than it actually is, because you've been rewarded (or punished) based on individual performance. Of course…

Why do you always get downvoted to hell? I thoroughly enjoy your posts.

HN, what is wrong with being provocative? This place has too much buttoned-down, fear of the downvote (FOD, kinda like FUD but for geeks). Ironically, the HN crowd would make perfect academics. Such reason, much facts!

note: i'm an academic deciding on whether to take or bail on a tenure-track academic job.

Re: Academia's 1%

#116

Post by potatote » Sun, Mar 08, 2015, 12:55 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #96

beambot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having to look for research position at a company or getting stuck fighting for tenure position That's something of a false dichotomy. I know lots of PhDs that aren't doing research or faculty jobs.

Maybe, I am in a position to interview a lot of candidates and all the ones with PhDs applying for general software engineer positions are pretty bad at software. Some fail the fizzbuzz test even. They have been working on their research project for 4 years and in that time forgot all most of the things they learned in undergraduate. Some of the ones that passed the interview were asking for much higher salaries, whi…

As someone who will be graduating in less than a year of PhD in comp sci., I would like to encourage you to not give up on all PhDs with such assumption. Like you, I am not impressed with the prospect of academia and research in general. But I honestly don't think a majority of CS phd students at decent (top 50) universities will fail fizzbuzz test as long as they have had undergraduate CS background. Some of us may fail to implement BFS/DFS/merge/quicksort during a 45 minute interview, but I think this is due to the interviewing process for tech jobs being somewhat broken (I saw my peers studying 3 or more months with interview prep books/sites and thought it's becoming ridiculous). A much better way to test a candidate would be to assign him/her a take-home assignment/project and let him/her work on it independently or along with your team, and judge his/her candidacy based on it (if your company can afford the extra time/resource for such process). I'm sure you'll notice those PhD folks from CS would not be as bad as you think they are.

In any case, I'd (for selfish reason) encourage you to be open-minded and give applicants with PhD background at least an equal chance. Personally, I never wanted a PhD, but I went for it because I needed to keep my immigrant status legal, and I couldn't pay for a master's degree out of pocket (if I enroll for a PhD program, I get a master's degree for free on the way). The downside of being a PhD student is that it is significantly more difficult for me to find my way back into software positions, which is something I wanted to do eventually; the HR usually throws away my resume with the assumption(s) that I am either only interested in research or am "overqualified" (or that I'd ask for more money), all of which are incorrect for a lot of PhD students, like me, stuck in academia for now. For all HR or recruiters reading this, I'd encourage you all to give PhD students a fair shot for the programming positions at your firms. You might find that these PhD students are more motivated or have more persistence/endurance (as most who survive the PhD experience usually have) or if you're lucky, are better prepared and thoughtful programmers.

Re: Academia's 1%

#117

Post by Dewie » Sun, Mar 08, 2015, 12:56 AM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #88

Dewie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will wax poetically about meritocracy and fairness. Then they will get children of their own and think to themselves that giving them all the advantages that they can get is their newest and most moral goal.

Guilty as charged. But realistically, I know of no society where parents don't favor the interests of their own children, resulting in a trend towards increasing disparity. Perhaps the best we can hope for is to remember that perfect meritocracy is utopian, and can't be reconciled with fairness, so long as individuals can choose to whom they share their advantages -- indeed when we can't even all agree on what those…

> But realistically, I know of no society where parents don't favor the interests of their own children,

"But realistically, everyone else is doing it..."

Yes. I didn't have any particular society in mind. Just our own nature.

Re: Academia's 1%

#118

Post by j2kun » Sun, Mar 08, 2015, 1:23 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #9

I don't get the thing about cost of living. New Haven is not expensive, neither is NJ commutable to Princeton, nor Philadelphia. Chicago's cost of living is right at the national average. Durham's is probably below. Etc.

I am a mathematics graduate student at an AMS Group 1 public university in Chicago. The university's estimated cost of living is $16,046, but our wage minimums were significantly below this number (about $1k less) until two years ago, which was the result of over a year of contract negotiations during which we had to bring in an arbiter from the federal government because the university was not bargaining with our union in good faith. They also threatened to raise our health-care premiums and increase fees arbitrarily. The university also bans individual departments from paying their graduate students much more to compensate.

In short, our university appears to be doing everything they can to extract money from their graduate students. It is ridiculous and nearsighted.

Re: Academia's 1%

#119

Post by bbgm » Sun, Mar 08, 2015, 1:49 AM UTC

ejstronge wrote: post #57

viscanti wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are two distinct issues here. The first is that it seems like university students select schools and classes based on the academic background of their professors (having a professor from Harvard seems to be more prestigious than having one from most state schools). For many students (especially before they ever take a class), they don't know enough about most of the professors to evaluate them (so the e…

I disagree with you on both counts: 1. Perhaps your university background is different, but I haven't ever had the impression that a particular professor's class is preferred to another due to the first professor's educational pedigree, in undergraduate classes . Such classes often conform to general topics and there is insufficient variability for two professors to directly compete for students. Undergraduate studen…

I turned down a couple of better name universities for a lesser known university (for graduate school) because my advisor there was top of his field. At that point, the university doesn't really matter. You look at the quality of work of your advisor and how well funded he/she is.

Re: Academia's 1%

#120

Post by rifung » Sun, Mar 08, 2015, 1:53 AM UTC

potatote wrote: post #116

rdtsc wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, I am in a position to interview a lot of candidates and all the ones with PhDs applying for general software engineer positions are pretty bad at software. Some fail the fizzbuzz test even. They have been working on their research project for 4 years and in that time forgot all most of the things they learned in undergraduate. Some of the ones that passed the interview were asking for much higher salaries, whi…

As someone who will be graduating in less than a year of PhD in comp sci., I would like to encourage you to not give up on all PhDs with such assumption. Like you, I am not impressed with the prospect of academia and research in general. But I honestly don't think a majority of CS phd students at decent (top 50) universities will fail fizzbuzz test as long as they have had undergraduate CS background. Some of us may…

Why is failing to implement BFS/DFS/quicksort in a 45 minute interview the fault of the interviewing process being broken?

The idea that someone has to study 3 months for an interview is ridiculous. I suppose for a PhD student I can understand as they probably need to refresh their memory, but if that's the case then you could argue they shouldn't be passing the interviews without refreshing their memory if we are talking about normal software development roles.