7 ms·

I've discussed this in the past, but the basic reasoning here is that more and more people ("men" are singled out for this article but it's irrelevant) are leav

I've discussed this in the past, but the basic reasoning here is that more and more people ("men" are singled out for this article but it's irrelevant) are leaving academia and not looking back, along with rising populations of people opting to not enter academia in the first place. Science offers a shitty value proposition: spend your youth in the laboratory for poverty-wages, then your late youth doing the same for poor wages, then your middle age doing the same for poor wages, then maybe you become a professor and make average to decent wages. Sure, science is interesting, and for a certain kind of personality (mine, for instance) the bullshit can be tolerated, for a time. Some people can tolerate it forever because tolerating bullshit means they get to research something that is intensely interesting to them. But everyone sees the writing on the wall-- science is not a path to a healthy middle class lifestyle for the current generation, and wasn't for the previous generation of scientists either. In fact, I reckon you'd have to go back to the boomers if you want to see people who really had a good thing going in the scientific establishment. There is no opportunity to "hit it out of the park" and somehow come back with a windfall.

6stringmerc 11y ago
I'd like to note agreement and support of this perspective. Personal anecdote to follow. At a Top 60 World Ranked Research University, I have seen first-hand the students / Post-Docs dealing with a critical lack of jobs or opportunities within academic research. Not to belabor my overall vitriol toward the Boomer generation regarding their behaviors in the market (e.g. "Get all I can, screw those behind me"), but those who have 'made it' and are decision makers now have changed the dynamics to reflect more of a cut-throat, race-to-the-bottom labor pool perspective. That doesn't even factor in the 'IP creep' of interests outside of science trying to get a piece of the action these days. The most telling example? A person working in a good lab (good publication record, pretty well funded) was a PhD Post Doc from the institution where they were working in the lab. Due to cutbacks, the Chair told the PI that costs needed to be cut, which meant 1 employee had to go elsewhere. Rather than suggest the last-hired employee be the one, the Chair pointed to the PhD Post Doc and said: "Just fire her and get an H1-B." I trust my sources and do know the context of the conversation / lab's outlook. It was pretty stunning to me though. Go to great university, get PhD, put in effort and be on papers as a Post Doc, then kicked to the curb for an H1-B on a purely fiscal basis. That's some hot garbage right there. I'm glad to note that the Post Doc in this story has left bench science and is now a full time professor elsewhere, where she is appreciated much more. And, without hesitation, she steers talented science minds away from research as a career.
- shas3 11y ago
  I call bullshit. Given how little a department actually spends on employees that report to PIs, it would be interesting to know how this happened! Further, H1B is not a zero-cost or low cost proposition for universities and departments, especially for short term appointments! He said she said can provoke discussions, but should also be viewed with skepticism! It might work for large companies because the upfront cost ($10k attorney, filing, etc.) amortizes over the several years the h1b is likely to be employed.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Well you can call bullshit but I have the math and you can't argue with it. The Post Doc was 1 year away from being promoted to Instructor, which meant they were at the upper bound of the Post Doc salary. Also, if the Post Doc was promoted to Instructor, they would become Faculty and would be unable to be shit-canned during a Reduction In Force (RIF) scenario. The Chair made all of this clear. So, if you're going to call me a liar, you can go pound sand because that's not how I roll. Thanks to a little tool I found here on Hacker News, I was able to look up the number of H1-B Visa applications for this Top 60 Research University, and in one year alone, they applied for 70+ Post Doc H1-B Visas. Obviously they know how to pull it off. Besides, everybody in science knows that students / Post Docs are expected to be like slave labor, and as many have pointed out, the conditions of the H1-B are extremely beneficial to the employer in the context of pressure to perform and retention. Skepticism is fine, but it's not bullshit. Your rebuttal is ineffectual and belongs in the circular file.
    - dominotw 11y ago
      >but I have the math and you can't argue with it. Where is "the math"? You just reiterated your previous post with more vitriol.
      - Retra 11y ago
        Debating the validity someone's anecdote (when it is only incidentally relevant anyway) is not something to get hung up on.
zenogais 11y ago
This was pretty much the reason I didn't go to grad school, despite having a full ride. Seemed like a one-way ticket to misery and poverty, and I was kinda over that after working my way through college (having as many as 3 jobs at a time plus classes full-time).
rayiner 11y ago
No, you don't understand. Science is its own reward. You're pushing forward the frontier of human knowledge! You should share everything you learn for free with the world, and just be happy that you left the world a better place than you found it. Money is such a lesser reward anyway compared to the adulation scientists get. After all, history will remember the guy who discovered the capacitive touchscreen, not the one that made billions putting it into a phone.
- toolz 11y ago
  The world would be a better place if we all had this thought process, but I could never have this perspective. Even when I first read your comment, my gut reaction was disgust. It took me a moment to reflect and even then I know I couldn't condition myself to think like this. I crave external approval and as much as scientists might think of themselves, the world at large see's you as a tool used by politicians and entrepreneurs. Thanks for being able to have a healthy perspective and I hope you can convince more people to do the same.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I also am having hard time getting this perspective, but not for the love of money. On the contrary, being employed usually cuts down my effectiveness compared to doing the same task out of my own volition. In other words, I hate work, but I'll gladly do the same thing for free - if someone took care of bullshit concerns like having a warm meal and a decent place to sleep for myself and my younger siblings who are still in education. I believe lots of science-minded folks think the same - they'd love to do reasearch, but maybe they want to start a family, or maybe they have parents to support, or maybe they don't feel like being someone's slave labor.
  - wfo 11y ago
    I'm pretty sure his post was dripping with sarcasm.
    - d4rti 11y ago
      I'd agree - I'd bet more people know the name Steve Jobs than Bill Buxton.
Thriptic 11y ago
I don't think it's necessarily the case that academic science is a shitty value proposition; it could work well if funding were increased (obviously) and the university science model was done away with in favor of something resembling the institute model: 1. Everyone should be able to call themselves a PI and get space if they can bring in grants, and everyone should be able to apply for all grants. You shouldn't be locked out of getting funding just because your employer hasn't given you an arbitrary title. 2. The faculty / student model should be done away with after the masters degree. PIs should be spending 100% of their time doing research (or raising money) and stop wasting time on tenure track nonsense. If you want to employ someone to do science under you as a grad student or post doc is now, then they should be paid a salary at least as large as what a technician would make in industry. There should also be no institute or government ceiling on salary, as people should be able to negotiate for whatever they are worth. 3. Salaries should be increased at the expense of overhead, which could be massively reduced outside of a university. 4. Investigators should own their IP. Institutes should have TLOs in place to help investigators monetize the IP for a percentage of ownership if they want. The main issue with this model would be funding start up packages, which is a non-trivial problem which I haven't figured out a solution for yet. Perhaps these could be partially crowd funded? I would be interested in getting peoples' input.
- collyw 11y ago
  If the research is publicly funded then the IP should be public in my opinion.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- shas3 11y ago
  Fully in agreement. I think the answer to the PhD/postdoc glut should be more institutes. We still need the universities for teaching, and they are doing an outstanding job at that. I think of all the university systems in the world, American is perhaps the best. But unfortunately, institutes are more prevalent as a research model in Western Europe. More British and French researchers in my field are affiliated with institutes than American. Institute affiliation (INRIA,CNRS, private-endowed institutes in UK, Max Planck Institutes, etc.) is the norm in Europe, while it is an outlier in the US.

6stringmerc 11y ago

I'd like to note agreement and support of this perspective. Personal anecdote to follow. At a Top 60 World Ranked Research University, I have seen first-hand the students / Post-Docs dealing with a critical lack of jobs or opportunities within academic research. Not to belabor my overall vitriol toward the Boomer generation regarding their behaviors in the market (e.g. "Get all I can, screw those behind me"), but those who have 'made it' and are decision makers now have changed the dynamics to reflect more of a cut-throat, race-to-the-bottom labor pool perspective. That doesn't even factor in the 'IP creep' of interests outside of science trying to get a piece of the action these days. The most telling example? A person working in a good lab (good publication record, pretty well funded) was a PhD Post Doc from the institution where they were working in the lab. Due to cutbacks, the Chair told the PI that costs needed to be cut, which meant 1 employee had to go elsewhere. Rather than suggest the last-hired employee be the one, the Chair pointed to the PhD Post Doc and said: "Just fire her and get an H1-B." I trust my sources and do know the context of the conversation / lab's outlook. It was pretty stunning to me though. Go to great university, get PhD, put in effort and be on papers as a Post Doc, then kicked to the curb for an H1-B on a purely fiscal basis. That's some hot garbage right there. I'm glad to note that the Post Doc in this story has left bench science and is now a full time professor elsewhere, where she is appreciated much more. And, without hesitation, she steers talented science minds away from research as a career.

shas3 11y ago
I call bullshit. Given how little a department actually spends on employees that report to PIs, it would be interesting to know how this happened! Further, H1B is not a zero-cost or low cost proposition for universities and departments, especially for short term appointments! He said she said can provoke discussions, but should also be viewed with skepticism! It might work for large companies because the upfront cost ($10k attorney, filing, etc.) amortizes over the several years the h1b is likely to be employed.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Well you can call bullshit but I have the math and you can't argue with it. The Post Doc was 1 year away from being promoted to Instructor, which meant they were at the upper bound of the Post Doc salary. Also, if the Post Doc was promoted to Instructor, they would become Faculty and would be unable to be shit-canned during a Reduction In Force (RIF) scenario. The Chair made all of this clear. So, if you're going to call me a liar, you can go pound sand because that's not how I roll. Thanks to a little tool I found here on Hacker News, I was able to look up the number of H1-B Visa applications for this Top 60 Research University, and in one year alone, they applied for 70+ Post Doc H1-B Visas. Obviously they know how to pull it off. Besides, everybody in science knows that students / Post Docs are expected to be like slave labor, and as many have pointed out, the conditions of the H1-B are extremely beneficial to the employer in the context of pressure to perform and retention. Skepticism is fine, but it's not bullshit. Your rebuttal is ineffectual and belongs in the circular file.
  - dominotw 11y ago
    >but I have the math and you can't argue with it. Where is "the math"? You just reiterated your previous post with more vitriol.
    - Retra 11y ago
      Debating the validity someone's anecdote (when it is only incidentally relevant anyway) is not something to get hung up on.

zenogais 11y ago

This was pretty much the reason I didn't go to grad school, despite having a full ride. Seemed like a one-way ticket to misery and poverty, and I was kinda over that after working my way through college (having as many as 3 jobs at a time plus classes full-time).

rayiner 11y ago

No, you don't understand. Science is its own reward. You're pushing forward the frontier of human knowledge! You should share everything you learn for free with the world, and just be happy that you left the world a better place than you found it. Money is such a lesser reward anyway compared to the adulation scientists get. After all, history will remember the guy who discovered the capacitive touchscreen, not the one that made billions putting it into a phone.

toolz 11y ago
The world would be a better place if we all had this thought process, but I could never have this perspective. Even when I first read your comment, my gut reaction was disgust. It took me a moment to reflect and even then I know I couldn't condition myself to think like this. I crave external approval and as much as scientists might think of themselves, the world at large see's you as a tool used by politicians and entrepreneurs. Thanks for being able to have a healthy perspective and I hope you can convince more people to do the same.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I also am having hard time getting this perspective, but not for the love of money. On the contrary, being employed usually cuts down my effectiveness compared to doing the same task out of my own volition. In other words, I hate work, but I'll gladly do the same thing for free - if someone took care of bullshit concerns like having a warm meal and a decent place to sleep for myself and my younger siblings who are still in education. I believe lots of science-minded folks think the same - they'd love to do reasearch, but maybe they want to start a family, or maybe they have parents to support, or maybe they don't feel like being someone's slave labor.
- wfo 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure his post was dripping with sarcasm.
  - d4rti 11y ago
    I'd agree - I'd bet more people know the name Steve Jobs than Bill Buxton.

Thriptic 11y ago

I don't think it's necessarily the case that academic science is a shitty value proposition; it could work well if funding were increased (obviously) and the university science model was done away with in favor of something resembling the institute model: 1. Everyone should be able to call themselves a PI and get space if they can bring in grants, and everyone should be able to apply for all grants. You shouldn't be locked out of getting funding just because your employer hasn't given you an arbitrary title. 2. The faculty / student model should be done away with after the masters degree. PIs should be spending 100% of their time doing research (or raising money) and stop wasting time on tenure track nonsense. If you want to employ someone to do science under you as a grad student or post doc is now, then they should be paid a salary at least as large as what a technician would make in industry. There should also be no institute or government ceiling on salary, as people should be able to negotiate for whatever they are worth. 3. Salaries should be increased at the expense of overhead, which could be massively reduced outside of a university. 4. Investigators should own their IP. Institutes should have TLOs in place to help investigators monetize the IP for a percentage of ownership if they want. The main issue with this model would be funding start up packages, which is a non-trivial problem which I haven't figured out a solution for yet. Perhaps these could be partially crowd funded? I would be interested in getting peoples' input.

collyw 11y ago
If the research is publicly funded then the IP should be public in my opinion.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
shas3 11y ago
Fully in agreement. I think the answer to the PhD/postdoc glut should be more institutes. We still need the universities for teaching, and they are doing an outstanding job at that. I think of all the university systems in the world, American is perhaps the best. But unfortunately, institutes are more prevalent as a research model in Western Europe. More British and French researchers in my field are affiliated with institutes than American. Institute affiliation (INRIA,CNRS, private-endowed institutes in UK, Max Planck Institutes, etc.) is the norm in Europe, while it is an outlier in the US.