721–730 of 756 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of what you've said is true, but also largely unrelated to the content of the article, which is about funding research.
It's relevant in that the article mentions "research" 13 times, but "education" only 3 times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A sizable chunk of the endowment likely has legal restrictions that limit how funds can be spent. E.g., they could be earmarked for undergraduate scholarships or a specific lab at a specific department. The endowment isn't a slush fund. Some of it has some restrictions, but money is fungible. I do not believe that MIT is actually limited (in practice ) from writing their own grants because of donor restrictions (if…
Money is not fungible when you are a large organization. Many things that should be possible in principle are impossible in practice due to rules, politics, and institutional inertia. MIT's endowment is ~80% earmarked to whatever purposes the donors considered important. The remaining ~20% is unrestricted, but unrestricted does not mean unallocated. Everything has already been allocated to some purpose, at least impl…
Isn't that the responsibility of the dean to fix? I think a lot of us have no idea how this actually works, but do understand the difference between impossible and hard. This seems more like it's on the hard side than impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you, I needed that. It is a great reminder that eventually these talking points will always swamp any communication channel. These talking points are such a great example of the effectiveness of organized groups versus individuals in the market place of ideas. It makes me appreciate the early days of the internet even more, and the good fortune to be alive in that moment.
I'm not part of an organized group. >It is a great reminder that eventually these talking points will always swamp any communication channel. I notice that some people will respond to arguments by saying: "Oh, that argument. I've heard it many times before." What's interesting to me is that they seem to think simply saying "I've heard that many times before" should suffice as a counterargument. Really, it should be t…
So when people choose not to engage, you assume that is simply a sign of the fitness of your argument. Not that the argument has fundamental divergences from reality.
Having done my tour of duty in the moderation trenches, the only people I would spend the incredible effort to communicate in their terms, with their model of reality, are people I love dearly.
When I encounter commenters and nodes of the tree you are a part of, I use it now as a chance to be greatful of what I have. That way at least one of us is better off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brass tacks, if an institution has an overwhelming political leaning toward faction X and works to undermine faction Y, is it really surprising that when Y gets into power it attempts to damage the institution? This is precisely why publicly funded institutions should maintain agnostic political posture.
How do you do this when belief in science, which is important to academic institutions, is unpopular with one faction?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not part of an organized group. >It is a great reminder that eventually these talking points will always swamp any communication channel. I notice that some people will respond to arguments by saying: "Oh, that argument. I've heard it many times before." What's interesting to me is that they seem to think simply saying "I've heard that many times before" should suffice as a counterargument. Really, it should be t…
See, you are in “not even wrong” territory. This is like someone planning a green cheese mining mission to the moon. So when people choose not to engage, you assume that is simply a sign of the fitness of your argument. Not that the argument has fundamental divergences from reality. Having done my tour of duty in the moderation trenches, the only people I would spend the incredible effort to communicate in their term…
You've now written 7 smug paragraphs, yet you claim you are "not engaging". This is annoying.
I could literally copy/paste paragraphs like yours into any HN thread on any topic, if I wanted to be insufferable.
Please just save yourself the effort next time. If you don't want to engage, then don't engage.
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…
A very US-centric perspective. Whereas the folks in Europe do it in 3-4 years, come to the US and do a 2-3 year postdoc (with higher pay than a PhD student), and are ahead of their American peers. Also, depending on where you do it in Europe, the pay as a PhD student is higher. At the extreme end, I knew students getting paid $60K/year in one country, while I was getting $24K/year in the US.
Yes it is.
In most European universities, you will graduate in 3-4y.
And there is simple reasons for that: The funding associated with a Phd in many European country is 3-4y. So if you do not graduate, you actually become a burden for your lab.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
as if the civil rights movement didn't have very significant events take place in mississippi https://bookshop.org/p/books/local-people-the-struggle-for-c...
Right so what’s stopping people from doing it now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you have an advanced CS degree, and I come to you with a complex issue concerning my desktop, and you spend 15 minutes filling out a digital intake form, 2 minutes tapping the tower, and finally tell me to power cycle whenever it comes up, I have every right to call you no better than a Geek Squad agent.
Let's be less pompous and let conduct speak for itself. If you're a skilled and highly-trained professional, demonstrate it. No credit for phoning it in, no credit for limiting your level of consideration and attentiveness to what a nurse is capable of. You're not owed prestige.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Your observation that the doctoral degree system has always been that way is precisely my point: the world has changed, and new forms of training are needed to complement the paper-publishers. The PhD system is broken in part because it's catering to multiple audiences when it should regain its focus on its core mission. That being said, many people want to do research but don't want to work in academia; in fact, I think their numbers are far greater than the academia-oriented. My idea caters to those people, and I think all parties (students, schools, industry, government, the general public) will benefit in this arrangement with almost no drawbacks.
From a degree-focused perspective, it's somewhat unusual that U.S. universities almost exclusively assign PhDs, save for the professional degrees (e.g., MD, PharmD, JD). Multiple types of bachelors and masters degrees exist, and those degrees are certainly differentiated from one another. In some European countries, the ScD is a terminal degree higher than a PhD.