Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010) • Hacker News Board

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#31

Post by pjlegato » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 12:49 AM UTC

The root problem is shown in this graph[1]. Simply put, since the 1960s, expanded funding for higher education in the US has vastly increased the supply of PhDs, while the number of job positions open for professors has not significantly increased.

"PhDs issued" grows exponentially (since each professor can issue PhDs to multiple students), but "job offers" grows only linearly.

This supply and demand imbalance tilts the power balance almost 100% in favor of the professor in any interaction with grad students. Professors have acquired essentially unlimited and arbitrary power to dictate conditions, and grad students have no choice but to comply or leave academia -- throwing away a lifetime of work and preparation.

More at http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/full/nbt.2706.html

[1] http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/images/nbt.2706-F1...

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#32

Post by rdtsc » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 12:55 AM UTC

My friend quit his postdoc in biochemistry over this shit. The head of the lab was abusive toward him, but mostly toward international students. Was treating them terribly, similar expectations regarding work "ethics", combined with threats regarding deportation and so on.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#33

Post by Kenji » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 12:55 AM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #12

guelo wrote: post #7

It's a violation of labor laws. Universities argue that they can bypass labor laws by calling it education but there have been some recent rulings against that argument in postdoc unionization cases.

Sure, this kind of pressure from an advisor breaks labor laws, but a postdoc is going to do this anyways because their contract is short-term, and if they don't rack up an achivement in that time, they're either have to be 1) lucky 2) a superstar, or 3) going to be kicked to the curb in terms of finding future employment. Science is often not something you can arbitrarily knock down into a 9-5. E.G: The enzyme assay…

Sure, this kind of pressure from an advisor breaks labor laws, but a postdoc is going to do this anyways because their contract is short-term, and if they don't rack up an achivement in that time, they're either have to be 1) lucky 2) a superstar, or 3) going to be kicked to the curb in terms of finding future employment.

Living under a bridge would be better than enduring this kind of stress. People have to take a step back and look at their lives. Nobody can work so much consistently without mentally and/or physically damaging themselves in significant and lasting ways.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#34

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 1:06 AM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #25

Someone wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the way down to kindergarten. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-china-schools-6ccb... : "When Doudou Wong from Shanghai was four, she began attending additional math, Chinese, and English classes outside of her weekday kindergarten"

And the worst part: This sort of draconian training regimen doesn't even work. If it did, China would have far more Nobel Prizes than it does.

[deleted]

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#35

Post by IndianAstronaut » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 1:07 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #32

My friend quit his postdoc in biochemistry over this shit. The head of the lab was abusive toward him, but mostly toward international students. Was treating them terribly, similar expectations regarding work "ethics", combined with threats regarding deportation and so on.

>combined with threats regarding deportation and so on.

People complain about H1Bs, but the situation faced by international postdocs is far worse.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#36

Post by benwr » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 1:10 AM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #31

The root problem is shown in this graph[1]. Simply put, since the 1960s, expanded funding for higher education in the US has vastly increased the supply of PhDs, while the number of job positions open for professors has not significantly increased. "PhDs issued" grows exponentially (since each professor can issue PhDs to multiple students), but "job offers" grows only linearly. This supply and demand imbalance tilts…

I agree with your first paragraph, but the second one doesn't make sense: Only professors with jobs can be PhD advisors, therefore the jobless PhD's don't increase the rate of PhD granting.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#37

Post by imjustsaying » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 1:12 AM UTC

Someone wrote: post #19

sndean wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You hold postdocs strictly to labor laws, and they are going to be at a disadvantage to the postdocs that are crazy enough to do what needs to be done. You hold all postdocs strictly to labor laws, and hard science simply doesn't happen. I experienced this as a grad student, too. You essentially were at a disadvantage if you had a social life. But you can extend this all the way down to high schoolers (or before?),…

All the way down to kindergarten. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-china-schools-6ccb... : "When Doudou Wong from Shanghai was four, she began attending additional math, Chinese, and English classes outside of her weekday kindergarten"

Shanghai is completely different from the rest of China.

Comparing Shanghai education to US education is like comparing the best school district in the US to the average school district of China.

As with many things the communists parade around, you will be shown the front gates, but you won't be shown anything past it lest you realize you're seeing the facade of a movie set.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#38

Post by noobermin » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 1:12 AM UTC

cshimmin wrote: post #23

rayiner wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've accurately described the status quo, but I'm not sure you've presented a good justification for it. There is no reason to believe the folks motivated by money are any less talented than the folks that aren't motivated by money. If science excludes people who don't want to work long hours for low pay, that's probably detrimental to society.

Hey, as a scientist, if you want to throw more money at science (to attract the population of talented people who are also money-motivated), I'm all for it! It would be interesting to see if it would "trickle down" and make the research better. It would also be interesting to see if you get an influx of grifters chasing after a piece of the pie, resulting in lower-quality science ("Trump laboratories! We have the bes…

You act as if the profit motive is less virtuous than the prestige motive. I think they are the same in that they both can corrupt.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#39

Post by IndianAstronaut » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 1:12 AM UTC

jostmey wrote: post #2

Hacker news has seen a lot of posts on this subject. The usual advice is to work in industry, where people are apparently treated like human beings. I am sure this is true, but the advice isn't helpful to me. Society benefits from scientific research. Dismiss its wage problems at your own peril. Sadly, a lot of research is outsourced to universities because labor is cheap. Why pay someone loads of money when you can…

>talent is leaving research in search of greener pastures.

I left my research position studying hereditary influences on cancer development to work in auto finance. Lots of people in my position doing the same. The talent pool is shrinking.

Re: Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry (2010)

#40

Post by anbende » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 1:18 AM UTC

benwr wrote: post #36

pjlegato wrote: post #31

The root problem is shown in this graph[1]. Simply put, since the 1960s, expanded funding for higher education in the US has vastly increased the supply of PhDs, while the number of job positions open for professors has not significantly increased. "PhDs issued" grows exponentially (since each professor can issue PhDs to multiple students), but "job offers" grows only linearly. This supply and demand imbalance tilts…

I agree with your first paragraph, but the second one doesn't make sense: Only professors with jobs can be PhD advisors, therefore the jobless PhD's don't increase the rate of PhD granting.

True, it's merely a much faster rate, rather that a compounding effect.