Academia's 1% • Hacker News Board

Re: Academia's 1%

#11

Post by eli_gottlieb » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 3:47 PM UTC

nycticorax wrote: post #8

The author seems to view the hiring statistics she cites as evidence of "bias", but I didn't see any attempt to control for the actual quality of the applicants. I.e. You could read all of this as just more evidence that the "system" works: the good schools tend to be enriched for good graduate students, who then tend to get a lot of the tenure-track jobs.

>You could read all of this as just more evidence that the "system" works: the good schools tend to be enriched for good graduate students, who then tend to get a lot of the tenure-track jobs.

Then, I think we have to continue reasoning, why do those grad-students grow up and find they can only acquire tenure-track jobs by jumping to lower-tier institutions, where their own academic "children" will be considered inferior?

Re: Academia's 1%

#12

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 3:49 PM UTC

kghose wrote: post #7

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…

Because, as we all know, politics plays no part in faculty hiring, and who you know, who your advisor was, who your drinking buddies were, have no bearing on those decisions, and it is all dependent solely on the objective merits of your work and expertise.

[deleted]

Re: Academia's 1%

#13

Post by UmDieWelt » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

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…

First-rate people hire people that went to the same group of first-rate schools they did. Also, why wouldn't second-rate people hire second-raters? According to that quote, no one hires second-raters. It really doesn't make much sense.

Re: Academia's 1%

#14

Post by cpks » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 3:50 PM 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.

Indeed. In addition, living frugally is not rocket science. I left graduate school around $2k ahead of coming in, and mine was in an area with higher costs of living than most of the ones mentioned. I shared my run-down apartment with three other people, ate cheap, and generally had a fantastic time.

If you want to insist on a private apartment, grad school isn't the place for you.

Re: Academia's 1%

#15

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 3:51 PM UTC

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…

Intelligence and talent isn't a cultural thing and it's not tied to social status either.

The 99% of us knows perfectly well that getting in and getting access to the network is the ral value and so those who get in tend to be mostly from those who could afford the right path for their kids.

Re: Academia's 1%

#16

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 3:54 PM 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.

Princeton is an expensive city that's where it's optimal to live if you attend Princeton.

Re: Academia's 1%

#17

Post by hga » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 3:54 PM UTC

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…

Per US News and World Report, Harvard and UCB are #2 in math, a hair below MIT and Princeton (http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-gradu...). Harvard certainly has a very strong reputation in math, including the hardest/most famous first year undergraduate course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_55 (i.e. one that might be attractive to TA for).

Disclaimer: my first job was being a sysadmin and programmer for an applied math group at MIT.

Re: Academia's 1%

#18

Post by forthefuture » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 3:55 PM UTC

UmDieWelt wrote: post #13

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…

First-rate people hire people that went to the same group of first-rate schools they did. Also, why wouldn't second-rate people hire second-raters? According to that quote, no one hires second-raters. It really doesn't make much sense.

If you're the best you can tell when someone's the best. If you're pretty good you might be able to tell if someone is pretty good, and definitely cannot tell if they're the best. If you're not that good you'll take anybody. Seems pretty straight forward.

Re: Academia's 1%

#19

Post by qmalxp » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 3:55 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #11

nycticorax wrote: post #8

The author seems to view the hiring statistics she cites as evidence of "bias", but I didn't see any attempt to control for the actual quality of the applicants. I.e. You could read all of this as just more evidence that the "system" works: the good schools tend to be enriched for good graduate students, who then tend to get a lot of the tenure-track jobs.

>You could read all of this as just more evidence that the "system" works: the good schools tend to be enriched for good graduate students, who then tend to get a lot of the tenure-track jobs. Then, I think we have to continue reasoning, why do those grad-students grow up and find they can only acquire tenure-track jobs by jumping to lower-tier institutions, where their own academic "children" will be considered infe…

Because grad schools produce more (graduating students) than they consume (hiring faculty).

Re: Academia's 1%

#20

Post by Edmond » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 3:55 PM UTC

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…

Off topic, I love the idea of SageMathCloud, check out http://www.jasymchat.com

A different take on Computer Algebra.