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

A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

president.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 756 posts

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

#691

Post by tuckerman »

jryio wrote: post #94
tuckerman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are saying the opposite. People have been coming to America for higher education and staying here and that has historically benefited the US. And that seems to be changing.

I am also saying the same thing. They are commenting that the flight of human capital was coming from abroad and is no longer. However that's not what brain drain means. You would say "Iran had a brain drain in the 70s" not "America was brain draining Iran" makes no sense.

I would say there was a brain drain from Iran to the US but I've also heard it used as a transitive verb. I think if there is a clear place talent is moving it's useful to specify it (and fwiw it doesn't sound weird to my ear).

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

#692

Post by wyldberry »

mrlongroots wrote: post #600
nomadygnt wrote: post #366

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.

As someone who graduated with a 7.5 year long PhD last month, I feel like PhD stipends are not a major problem. Like I got $40K in a low CoL area, but accounting for tuition and overheads I cost my advisor closer to $150K/year. Now why are tuition and overheads that high is a reasonable question and it ties into inefficiencies in broader American administrative processes, but I cost society and taxpayers $150K/year,…

It's great that you recognize that the last 1.5 years were the period you feel like you did things to justify that bill. However, much like juniors everywhere, you justify all of your pay because we are not paying you for your skill at that moment, but for who you will become.

Even more so for PHD work because the expectation is that after the training you will produce many things that make the cost of training you essentially negligible.

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

#693

Post by jhancock »

nomadygnt wrote: post #366
jasonhong wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who has graduated over a dozen PhD students in computer science... Yes, it is possible to complete a PhD in 3-4 years, but it's not really good for your career. The bar our department sets for a PhD is that at the end of it, you should be a world expert in your specific topic. A PhD is more like an apprenticeship, where you develop and refine your skills, your background knowledge in your area of…

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.

everything points to money

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

#694

Post by [deleted] »

daedrdev wrote: post #638
andix wrote: 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…

Until last year, the share of wealth by the 1% had been basically flat at 31% for a decade https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBST01134 Your expectations aren't matching reality

[deleted]

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

#695

Post by esalman »

loeg wrote: post #140
elteto wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fund them to do what exactly? Come up with their own research ideas? You got the pipeline backwards. The government picks the research areas/priorities then allocates funding for those, and universities apply and compete to get grants. _Then_, once a grant is given to a school, is funding for labs and graduate students allocated. If the government has no interest in doing research and provides no funding then schools…

That is how it usually works, but again, MIT has tens of billions of dollars. They could literally write their own grants.

That would be a conflict of interest.

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

#696

Post by hgoel »

jasonhong wrote: post #335
tasty_freeze wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work with a brilliant and humble guy. He got accepted to MIT at 14, but his parents made him go to community college for a year to give him a little more time to mature. He then went to MIT and graduated after three years, then went to Berkeley and got a masters in one year, then went to Stanford and it took six years to get his PhD? Why? Because his advisor milked him for his work. She had a pile of papers…

Speaking as someone who has graduated over a dozen PhD students in computer science... Yes, it is possible to complete a PhD in 3-4 years, but it's not really good for your career. The bar our department sets for a PhD is that at the end of it, you should be a world expert in your specific topic. A PhD is more like an apprenticeship, where you develop and refine your skills, your background knowledge in your area of…

>The bar our department sets for a PhD is that at the end of it, you should be a world expert in your specific topic.

In my opinion and from my experience, this is an odd expectation considering that a PhD is the absolute beginner career stage in research. It's the equivalent of being trusted to not mess up the morning coffee run.

A PhD is only indicative of having demonstrated the ability to complete research to a level that satisfies other researchers. Many of the things you describe are things one is expected to learn in their postdoc and as a junior researcher.

I finished mine (computer engineering) in ~5 years, practically 7 since I transferred near the end of a 2 year masters program. I was/am blessed with a good supervisor though.

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

#697

Post by 9x39 »

underlipton wrote: post #642
MikeTheGreat wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sp…

I don't know that people even care, at that. The way most are forced to interact with the healthcare system, a doctor is just a nurse in a white coat who's also a bit of an asshole (aloof and/or smarmy). Especially when they misdiagnose or miss a diagnoses.

>a doctor is just a nurse in a white coat

plus 10-15k hours of school, residency, etc give-or-take. Let's give credit where it's due.

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

#698

Post by twbarr »

jasonhong wrote: post #335
tasty_freeze wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work with a brilliant and humble guy. He got accepted to MIT at 14, but his parents made him go to community college for a year to give him a little more time to mature. He then went to MIT and graduated after three years, then went to Berkeley and got a masters in one year, then went to Stanford and it took six years to get his PhD? Why? Because his advisor milked him for his work. She had a pile of papers…

Speaking as someone who has graduated over a dozen PhD students in computer science... Yes, it is possible to complete a PhD in 3-4 years, but it's not really good for your career. The bar our department sets for a PhD is that at the end of it, you should be a world expert in your specific topic. A PhD is more like an apprenticeship, where you develop and refine your skills, your background knowledge in your area of…

As much as I would have loved to get out in sooner than six years, I tend to agree. In hindsight, if I'd treated it like a job and just done the coding and writing necessary to get the projects I published out the door, I could have done it in three, maybe two. But that would have missed the whole point.

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

#699

Post by kmicinski »

mohamedkoubaa wrote: post #515
cmiles8 wrote: post #155

Academia is about to go through a generational reset. The system is broken and the market only tolerates broken systems for so long. There are a ton of great things that come out of universities but it’s also clear that a model of charging folks well into the six-figures for a useless degree that doesn’t prepare them for the workforce is dead and a reckoning is underway. Many schools will fail and shut down. Of those…

It's simple. The US used to be the most desirable place for immigrants and the US higher education system used to be the envy of the world and now for both of these it is not any more. A reset was always inevitable.

> The US used to be the most desirable place for immigrants and the US higher education system used to be the envy of the world and now for both of these it is not any more.

That is a nice sound bite for TV--the reality is that the government has been systematically rejecting visas in a bid to kill universities. Yes, it's true that universities counted too much on rich MS students and the like. But the reason for the failures isn't that "it is not any more," as you say--it's a very calculated move by the current administration to eat universities' bottom line.

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

#700

Post by kmicinski »

waterheater wrote: post #390
cmiles8 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A real shock to academia is that top research increasingly takes place outside universities. On many areas universities are now 5-10 years behind what’s happening in the private sector. That’s causing a lot of panic within the system and a growing stream of departures as PhDs favor the private sector over academic tracts.

A few years ago, when I was actively involved with the academic world, I came to a similar realization. They're trying to do too many things at once. Universities need to acknowledge this reality and adjust. After thinking about it, I came up with a straightforward solution (at least in STEM): offer more than one type of of doctoral degree. Every program will have at least two doctoral programs: a Doctor of Philosoph…

This just kind of sounds like a random idea that sounds good in your head but not based in reality; the point of a PhD has always been one thing, and one thing alone: train someone who can publish influential papers in top-tier venues.

Anyone who says otherwise is just either uninformed or selling a dream.

Post reply on HN