Live data from Hacker News

A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

president.mit.edu

581–590 of 756 posts

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#581
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of that overhead is not going to admin salaries (although, as stated elsewhere in the discussion money is fungible) but covers things like the cost of buildings, labs, maintenance, etc.

I had no idea the on-going costs of physical things did not decrease over time, what an interesting thing to know. Here I thought that after you build the building and paid off the building, then for funsies also bought all the land surrounding the building, that at some point it would drastically cheaper to maintain it; but what you're saying makes so much sense!

You have clearly never owned a home. The older the building, the more maintenance it requires.

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#582
post #528
post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that across all universities? Because I would guess that, for example, University of Illinois gets a much larger portion of its funding from government sources than University of Chicago (which would be one of those well-endowed universities which, incidentally, just cut tuition to zero for undergrads from families making less than $250K).

University of Illinois is also a public school. University of Chicago is private, as is MIT.

Which is precisely why I made that comparison.

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this is CS-specific? Finishing physics PhD from high school in 6 years sounds just not enough time. Even exceptional people I know in my field needed at least 7-8 (3+4 or 3+2+3). 3 years into theoretical physics grad school is around the time people start doing decent research

It's common, most of the people I know from the UK system did their PhD in 3-4 years. In Europe you just study what it says as well. You happy to do a bachelor's in physics, your classes are all physics. You don't read shakespeare and learn french. You can also do this in high school, so you can from age 16 be studying just physics and math.

I did none of my degrees in US, and my physics degree was 95% math and physics. Physics degree is quite sequential anyway. You can't do QM in your first year or QFT in your second year.

I've checked random people I know from oxford and none started after 3-year undergrad and those how did after 4 all did 4 year dphil (small sample size warning). 4+4 is reasonable.

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#584
post #544
post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no shortage of money This is a general theme in the last decade. There is a lot of money, but it is more and more ending up in the pockets of the extremely wealthy. I'm really no communist, but we've reached a point where the system starts to crumble because of it. It also can't be in the interest of the billionaires. They also want to live in a safe country and use working public infrastructure (roads, ai…

You’ve got some copium in there. Why wouldn’t billionaires want a few famous professors they can buy to teach their children the same way Alexander the Great was taught by Aristotle. You don’t have to share the education time for your kids with the poor and think of how exclusive and how much status is advertises. As for everything else you said about it not being in the interest of the billionaires. Even if you are…

This is not true. Billionaires rely on public safety. To fly their private jets around the world they need ATC and airports. They need police, so angry people don't buy rockets and shoot their planes down.

They also want to chill at their pool, without hundreds of people outside rioting. They want to drive their sports cars somewhere.

They don't want to live their life in a zombie apocalypse shelter.

And how good will those bought professors be, if they didn't work at a good university?

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He appears to be tunnel-visioning on academia. The vast majority (>75%) of Computer Science PhDs leave academia. [0] Becoming a "world expert in a specific topic" is overfitting skills for a sub-niche of a specific career. There certainly aren't enough jobs in academia. [0] https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/213640/what-rat...

You’re arguing that we have too many PhD students in CS, not too few. I agree with you fwiw.

A research professor typically graduates dozens of PhD students. Perhaps there was a post-war bootstrapping period where every one of those students got a tenured position somewhere, and in turn also trained dozens of PhD students; but it's pretty obvious it's not realistic to expect this to continue indefinitely. We're way past saturation right now. Certainly very few are going to get their own tenured positions, and as for the rest, it depends on the winds of funding availability in industry.

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking a longer time to graduate to become the “world expert” in their field is fine if grad students weren’t paid next to nothing for the 60+ hours a week that they are expected to work. As it is now it’s better to finish as quickly as possible so they can have a real life.

I worked a ton in grad school, and it definitely sucked at the time. But it’s crazy to complain about getting paid to go to school. A grad stipend is there to minimally support you so you don’t have to get another job and can focus on your research. It’s not supposed to be a career!

I was working retail in Eugene, Oregon during the 2014 University of Oregon grad student strike. I had a little bit of a chip on my shoulder because I was working retail with a master's degree in physics (because I did not have the endurance to complete a PhD, but had not yet accepted that fact).

My then-partner was part of the strike. One of the strike demands was higher wages as teaching assistants. And while I worked 40 hours a week, for $11/hr, I made considerably more and worked fewer hours than her. She put in probably 30 hours a week just on her teaching load, plus an additional 30 hours split between explicit course work and dissertation work.

It's crazy that a job that requires excellent marks while completing a 4-year degree pays worse, has worse working conditions, and is considerably more competitive to get into than a job selling office supplies.

One of the other things the grad students were demanding (which they only sort of got) was paid parental leave, because they did not fail to notice that most of their professors were in their late 30s or early 40s before they could afford to stop work long enough to start a family. It was very rare for two academics to have children together, because of the heinous, career ending financial cost to having children when you were young enough that their high school graduation date was before your expected mortality.

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking a longer time to graduate to become the “world expert” in their field is fine if grad students weren’t paid next to nothing for the 60+ hours a week that they are expected to work. As it is now it’s better to finish as quickly as possible so they can have a real life.

I worked a ton in grad school, and it definitely sucked at the time. But it’s crazy to complain about getting paid to go to school. A grad stipend is there to minimally support you so you don’t have to get another job and can focus on your research. It’s not supposed to be a career!

I think the key difference is that: "going to school", sure you need a living stipend, but the actual research phase has serious WLB and working condition issues

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t this sort of how all terminal degrees work? MDs, JDs, etc are all putting the candidates through the wringer, for relatively low wages, until they’re “experienced”. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s common knowledge it’s the way things work if you want to have those magic letters of a terminal degree next to your name in your email signature. Don’t want to deal with the machinations required? Opt for the mast…

In the US, phds and professional degrees are more or less geared toward students who are comfortable enough financially to stomach the opportunity cost of 6-10+ years of additional education, unpaid or underpaid residencies and internships, and long apprenticeship hours (which prevent backfilling financial gaps) before making “real” income.

Can I ask why this is getting downvoted?

Most of the other comments are basically saying this ("the pay is too low for too long for not enough reward").

Anecdotally: I'm teaching a course in "How To Be Successful In College" (not it's real name) at the US community college where I teach Computer Science. I've got more than 1 student who are going to get a credential for nursing because there's just no way they can spend 8-10 years in school to become a doctor.

Would they be good doctors? The question is moot because it's never gonna happen.

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A US thing again? My friends all did 3 year bachelors, 3 year PhD. Some dragged out the PhD to 4. Those who do a masters do it in one year, and typically don't do a PhD. Some undergrad courses are 4 year and you get a masters at the end. And my UK bachelors was recognized as equivalent to a US masters degree for visa purposes.

Maybe this is CS-specific? Finishing physics PhD from high school in 6 years sounds just not enough time. Even exceptional people I know in my field needed at least 7-8 (3+4 or 3+2+3). 3 years into theoretical physics grad school is around the time people start doing decent research

I have three friends with Physics PhDs from Imperial and Cambridge and they did it in three years. That is/was the norm.

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, people act like everything was peachy until Trump decided to run, and then people went crazy and voted for him for some unknowable reason. No, things were pretty fucked before Trump. We had decades of our "leaders" in Washington treating the people with contempt and making decisions for personal benefit, rather than what benefits the people. We had bribery, I mean lobbying, behind a ton of the laws that got pas…

> but nobody should be surprised when people vote for an outsider who says "I'm for you, and I'm going to help you take back your country from the out of touch elites who hate you and only look out for themselves" Sort of, but that was always a pretty obvious tack to take, and I don't think there was ever a shortage of would-be leaders willing to play that role. So we're still left with the question of why the voters…

What other candidates were doing this? How many of them had wall-to-wall 24/7 free exposure on every cable news channel for a whole campaign season?
Post reply on HN