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

The Origin of the Research University

asteriskmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: The Origin of the Research University

#41

Post by oersted »

lapcat wrote: post #22
oersted wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article does state that professors did do research, but in their free time. For the examples you listed, were their famous research achievements really part of their university job description? Otherwise it’s more like Nietzsche working as an undertaker or Einstein working in the patent office just to support themselves. Naturally many such people would opt to be teachers to get by, that doesn’t necessarily mean…

> it’s more like Nietzsche working as an undertaker Where is this coming from? Nietzsche was a university professor. He did however serve as a medical orderly in the Franco-Prussian War.

You are right, not sure where I misremembered that from.

Re: The Origin of the Research University

#42

Post by oersted »

bonoboTP wrote: post #24
oersted wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the way I expressed it was an oversimplification. I generally wanted to make the point that they were people that weren’t forced to have a tiring full-time job just to get by, and that research was not really their job, with patronage as middle ground.

I think that's also not fully true. The trope is that the rich nobles were swimming in money and in their boredom they just tinkered and did hobby stuff and then this resulted in the discoveries. But for example Galileo from Wikipedia: > Three of Galileo's five siblings survived infancy. The youngest, Michelangelo (or Michelagnolo), also became a lutenist and composer who added to Galileo's financial burdens for the…

Thanks for elaborating on it, it’s good to learn. The trope though is more about the Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution and Royal Society era. But yeah they were never actual nobility, just upper-middle class. And indeed during the Renaissance and early modern period it was much more about patronage. A number of Greek philosophers were also wealthy, although others were simply frugal.

Nevertheless, my general point stands in that their research was almost never their job and they needed other means to support themselves, just like artists. And this was true throughout history until the paradigm shift described in OP’s article.

Re: The Origin of the Research University

#44

Post by ricksunny »

biofox wrote: post #5
bonoboTP wrote: post #4

Great thought provoking article, a lot of starting points for wikipedia deep dives. It's really surprising to me that most of the big name intellectuals from before the 19th century were indeed not doing their work in the university system. I guess it's in nobody's interest to highlight this. Academia wants to present itself as the obvious deposit and trailblazer of knowledge and that it always has been. There is sim…

It's a somewhat selective history. Off the top of my head: Kepler developed his ideas while at the University of Graz. [16th century] Galileo built his first telescopes while a professor at the University of Padua. [16th - 17th century] Newton did all of his work while at Cambridge (although, admittedly, it took the plague and a lockdown for him to have his annus mirabilis). [17th century] William of Ockham (of Razor…

That’s an impressive off-the-cuff cataloguing - few could do that.

Re: The Origin of the Research University

#45

Post by aleph_minus_one »

bonoboTP wrote: post #37
wisty wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, peer review started in the 1960s. Einstein published a single peer reviewed paper Also woth noting that Higgs claimed that the publish or perish climate of the 90s would have made his work in the early 60s impossible.

> Also woth noting that Higgs claimed that the publish or perish climate of the 90s would have made his work in the early 60s impossible. I found the posted article interesting in that it seemed to contradict this sentiment. See from the section titled "Göttingen and the birth of modern academia". Not the 60s vs now comparison, but the article contradicts the idea that "publish or perish" is new. Instead it says that…

> Instead it says that careers depended on publication counts before original research was even expected of university professors.

But these were not peer-reviewed publications.

Re: The Origin of the Research University

#46

Post by [deleted] »

oersted wrote: post #42
bonoboTP wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's also not fully true. The trope is that the rich nobles were swimming in money and in their boredom they just tinkered and did hobby stuff and then this resulted in the discoveries. But for example Galileo from Wikipedia: > Three of Galileo's five siblings survived infancy. The youngest, Michelangelo (or Michelagnolo), also became a lutenist and composer who added to Galileo's financial burdens for the…

Thanks for elaborating on it, it’s good to learn. The trope though is more about the Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution and Royal Society era. But yeah they were never actual nobility, just upper-middle class. And indeed during the Renaissance and early modern period it was much more about patronage. A number of Greek philosophers were also wealthy, although others were simply frugal. Nevertheless, my general point…

[deleted]

Re: The Origin of the Research University

#47

Post by bonoboTP »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #45
bonoboTP wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also woth noting that Higgs claimed that the publish or perish climate of the 90s would have made his work in the early 60s impossible. I found the posted article interesting in that it seemed to contradict this sentiment. See from the section titled "Göttingen and the birth of modern academia". Not the 60s vs now comparison, but the article contradicts the idea that "publish or perish" is new. Instead it says that…

> Instead it says that careers depended on publication counts before original research was even expected of university professors. But these were not peer-reviewed publications.

True. But I'd also gladly report that in small pockets like AI, having highly cited and used arXiv preprints that never passed peer-review can also be impactful regarding careers and job offers. Industry and academics often are smarter than looking at raw numbers. And they are aware that some subfields can sometimes be overtaken by mafialike collusion rings that keep every outsider away from their turf (it's usually hyperspecific to some narrowly defined AI task or benchmark area). It also depends on whether the decision maker is some huge committee and multi-level bureaucracy with process and metrics and numbers in Excel sheets or just one professor who can make their overall assessment without being questioned on it. Of course, this relies on trust that can be abused for biased hiring. Falling back on raw metrics is often a CYA tactic in low-trust, litigious societies.

Re: The Origin of the Research University

#48

Post by wisty »

bonoboTP wrote: post #37
wisty wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, peer review started in the 1960s. Einstein published a single peer reviewed paper Also woth noting that Higgs claimed that the publish or perish climate of the 90s would have made his work in the early 60s impossible.

> Also woth noting that Higgs claimed that the publish or perish climate of the 90s would have made his work in the early 60s impossible. I found the posted article interesting in that it seemed to contradict this sentiment. See from the section titled "Göttingen and the birth of modern academia". Not the 60s vs now comparison, but the article contradicts the idea that "publish or perish" is new. Instead it says that…

True, though it was only in some universities and there are boom / bust cycles.

Universities weren't picky in the 60s. Now they are cut-throat.

Post reply on HN