> I suspect this is a staged Zoom call for marketing purposes. How do I know this? Everyone is smiling.
Oh come on, everyone is smiling because there's an infant in the leftmost 2nd from top video. Or a picture of an infant. Someone did "hey look at my cute kid" and everyone loses it because that's what people do.
It’s not as common but the incentive structures in academia are uniquely enabling to abusers. In industry it’s much easier to leave tyrant bosses. I agree with your points.
Many of the positive incentives don’t exist in industry though, an “up and out” culture is rarer in industry. When it works in academia your supervisor is positively invested in your growth, in general in industry your supervisor doesn’t care about your growth. If they need someone with new skills and you learn them fine but they can also fire you and hire someone with those skills (even though this is probably a net negative for them due to retraining on job specific stuff, it’s still seen as a net positive by management)
There is less abuse though. Full stop. Sorry you’re in this situation.
> In industry it’s much easier to leave tyrant bosses.
… and when that’s less true, you see the same dynamic. Most of the bad stories I’ve heard involve H1-B holders who couldn’t leave, locations where there wasn’t much other tech employment, or specialized skills which were only in demand by a handful of local employers (e.g. being a veteran COBOL employer in SV will not give you an edge for most of the open jobs). Academia is just unique in having enshrined that dynamic for almost everyone: the job market is brutal and an abusive or careless advisor’s support for finishing and finding jobs has a huge impact.
I’m not an academic but have spent a fair amount of time being the only person in the room who isn’t a grad student or have a PhD and there’s been a lot of commentary that science would be healthier for having more staff scientist positions in larger groups, both to reduce the degree that many careers depend on one person’s decisions and simply to recognize that there’s a huge mismatch between the number of people needed on many projects and tenure track positions available. Everyone I know who left for industry is happier but that’s skewed by most of them having had the skills to go into data science & ML and thus significant income multipliers.
Oh not to worry, academia innovated on this concept too and for non-US citizens advisors can simultaneously hold both a students F-1 visa and their career future over them.
Your points are valid though.
> science would be healthier for having more staff scientist positions in larger groups
I think this is a good idea but not for these reasons. Big labs frequently do have research scientist type roles but those roles are harder to fund so it is sort of a "rich get richer" deal. As I understand it, just cast your eyes around in a university and ask "who pays for that." Professors are paid for by the students they teach and the grant money they bring in. A research scientist might not have either so why would the university commit to paying for them perpetually and how would they afford that?
They could commit to funding some number of research scientists at the expense of some well paid administrators (gasp) but I think this only adds a constant factor of slack to the system, and those research scientist jobs would quickly become as competitive and cut throat to get as TT prof jobs, perhaps more so because many TT profs really don't want to teach or do service work so if you gave them a role that was just research but with the job permanence and freedom of a TT position they would kill for it.
PhD students in the sciences rarely pay for the professors; instead, students are often funded by the professors' grants. Research scientists could be funded the same way with a few (easy) changes.
1. Research grants are too small. The modular budget for an R01, the workhorse grant of biomedicine, just about covers a PI + staff scientist salary, with very little money left over for the actual research. Make it a bit bigger--it hasn't been inflation-adjusted since 2004(?). This might cost a bit, but we spend something like a penny per tax dollar on all research, even though it has a HUGE multiplier effect.
2. Expand the funding mechanisms. Students and postdocs are attractive not just because they're cheap, but because you might not need to pay them at all: there are myriad funding opportunities in addition to a project grant, ranging from individual fellowships to department/program-wide training grants. In contrast, there's ONE mechanism for funding staff scientists, the R50, only one of the NIH's institutes participates, and it fund ~28 people/year. Divert some money from training grants to this, which could be cost-neutral (grad students are surprisingly expensive when the grant pays their tuition).
I think this would have several beneficial effects: better science, but also a saner job market, which in turn would have knock-on benefits on trainees' success and morale (there is pretty clear data on this) as well as DEI.
> In industry it’s much easier to leave tyrant bosses.
Well, there is a lot of industry we collectively turn a blind eye to.
Meat packing facility jobs is a hot topic right now due to stories about COVID conditions. The workers in the facilities are treated like the human equivalent of the livestock they process. But the employer is often the "only game in town" for those workers. Even if it's not impossible for them to leave they may be practically stuck and this is reflected in their treatment.
I appreciate this but in the context of this discussion when a PhD asks “is it better in industry” they do not mean going to work at a meat packing plant.
Your larger point is true though and it would be great for there to be equity and dignity for all people of all professions!
I tend to agree that's a somewhat safe bet and it gave me pause making this comment.
However "industry" has not been thoroughly qualified and it has been used throughout the comments in a very general way.. Plus, I'm sure Tyson Foods employs some PhDs among its 141,000 workers :)
Teaching classes effectively is very hard and very few people can do it. It also doesn’t pay that well and is draining and often times not that rewarding. Universities try to get people that are good at it as professors by bribing them with the respect and autonomy that the title “professor” confers. Outside of the classroom, the professor does whatever they want to advance their own agenda.
I would think online only programs would have a hard time competing with universities for people that can design and execute effective courses. There are so few that most universities don’t even employ many of them. Why would someone like that work for an online school when they could work for one that would give them tenure, funding, lab space, grad students, etc?
>Universities try to get people that are good at it as professors by bribing them with the respect and autonomy that the title “professor” confers.
Generally speaking, universities don't care much about teaching ability. Hiring decisions are based almost entirely on research profiles (except where the institution itself has a clear focus on teaching over research, as at e.g. some liberal arts colleges). There are two main reasons for this. First, research brings more money and prestige. Second, student satisfaction has little to do with teaching quality. You can make students happy just by giving them a light workload and good grades.
So in fact, there are lots of people who are good at teaching who universities have no interest in hiring.
> Why would someone like that work for an online school when they could work for one that would give them tenure, funding, lab space, grad students, etc?
Well, someone like that would love to not have to waste time lecturing. By not being on campus they could go to more conferences and spend more time in the field. They could recruit ideal grad students from anywhere on earth without worrying about immigration restrictions or family ties.
I lived in Dallas and it is the only place I've lived where people would scream homophobic slurs at me in the street. I wouldn't say I'd never move back, but the situation would have to be dire for me to consider it. Definitely cut your hair if you visit.
I dunno, 40 years of living in other places, stuff like this only happens in Texas and the South. There are definitely assholes in NY and Boston but they won't get up in my grill for "looking gay" on the street so that's pretty neat.
It happened to me in Chicago, twice in one weekend. All I did was wear a pink shirt and walk down the street. That was enough to garner homophobic slurs.
I'm not gay and when I mentioned it to one of my Chicago friends, and he just shrugged his shoulders and said, "Yeah."
How do you decide which scientists to pay? Pay them all? Then everyone becomes a “scientist” but does no work and draws a free paycheck.
Pay the ones that produce good work? What is good work? Right now, that is decided by number of papers. That metric is gamed to death, that is what publish or perish culture did. Choose any other metric, it will be gamed too.
What if the PhD meant something such that having it was enough? That was all you needed, then you would just get paid to do science. Such a gatekeepeing would require graduating a lot fewer PhDs. How to do that is open: admit fewer? Or psd fewer? If the latter, maybe master out a lot more? Anyone that makes it through gets a guaranteed paycheck, but almost no one makes it through.
Where you are mistaken is that there are a large number of graduates because there is a large demand for research. There isn’t. A given professor needs N papers to get tenure. Say that N = c*k for c researchers and k papers. N is so large that c must be >2, so for the professor to get tenure, they need assistants. Where do they come from? Graduate students. What do those students do when they graduate? The professor doesn’t care because they have tenure now.
Research funding has been decreasing over time, which means N increases, which, counter-intuitively, means c increases, which starts a negative feedback loop because the amount of researchers competing for funding increases while the amount of funding available decreases, still further increasing the number of graduate students needed. That explains what you see.
> In sum, your own oral and written statements to the OIE investigator, the Dean’s Office, and
others clearly establish the following:
> On May 8th, 2019, carrying bolt cutters and leading a group of non-affiliates to campus, you
forcibly entered Garland Hall in the middle of the night. By your own admissions, your
actions were premeditated and you expected that your actions could result in a violent
confrontation with students and others in or around Garland Hall. In fact, you believed the
group of non-affiliates you brought with you could become violent. As a faculty member at
Johns Hopkins University, you created a dangerous situation that could have ended in
serious harm to our students, yourself, and others in the community.
> Prior to May 8th, 2019, JHU administrators had clearly and repeatedly instructed you that
Garland Hall was closed and that you were not permitted to enter, despite your requests
for permission to access the computer servers in the building. You acted in deliberate
defiance of the administration’s directives. You have flagrantly and unapologetically
violated JHU directives and your actions have endangered the University community.
Further, you stated you feel no remorse or regret for your actions.
I don't understand how these events are acceptable. Neither Daniel Povey nor JHU seem to dispute any of the critical facts. How is recruiting some muscle to go bust some heads, in any universe, an acceptable course of action? For any employer?
Smart people get everyone else to bog themselves down with "second-order thinking" perpetually tying themselves in mental knots wondering endlessly "what happens next" and "should I or shouldn't I." That is because smart people that get shit done will not think twice, do the thing, and then quickly re-evaluate the results and proceed apace. Smart people that get shit done, outperform by actually executing. You can't predict the future. Asking "but what about in ten years" is the height of hubris. The only answer can be "who knows."
I agree that smart, effective people do generally have a bias toward action. But not in the bull in the shop "thinking twice is a waste of my time" sort of way you're describing.
Depending on your aim, smarter people probably don't spend time bogging others down, and instead probably fall closer to the teach a man to fish side of things.
There is some truth to this. The future is impossible to predict. There is foolishness in failing to understand where predictions make sense and where they don't. We like to talk about "intelligence", but wisdom and the virtue of prudence are essential. Without the disciplining effect of the virtues, intelligence is thwarted. The degree and the kind of effort one puts into something is extremely important and requires a comprehension of the confluence of factors that are important to making the correct decision. This requires experience.
And as the saying goes, if you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans. But that isn't to say we shouldn't plans. This should not be taken as license for impulsive behavior and an irresponsible absense of forethought. But it should be understood that plans are often dependent on certain conditions holding, on the completeness of our knowledge, etc, thus requiring humility in the face of uncertainty and recognizing that plans must be adjusted or abandoned sometimes. There is no recipe for any of this and first principle are not enough.
We could tell my story instead. My uncle was an electrician, I didn't take high school that seriously, so my parents wanted me to apprentice for my uncle. I said no thanks, got a low level tech job, worked my way through undergrad and then PhD school, and now I have a cushy, well paid job where I sit indoors in a private office for eight hours a day and think for a living. My uncle had to crawl through attics on hot summer days, fight with rodents and snakes, and deal with live electrical wires and people who don't pay their bills. On top of that, he wound up dead from mesothelioma, probably from spending most of his days just breathing in insulation fibers.
So, thanks but no thanks, basically. You can romanticize the trades all you want but from my experience watching my family and friends from back home, "the trades" are exchanging the better years of your life in time and health to rich people in exchange for an early and painful death.
Oh come on, everyone is smiling because there's an infant in the leftmost 2nd from top video. Or a picture of an infant. Someone did "hey look at my cute kid" and everyone loses it because that's what people do.