7 ms·
Well, that's fucked up about academia. All the more reason to create alternatives. Do you really want to be part of a system that does not allow for failure?
by sama 11y ago
Well, that's fucked up about academia. All the more reason to create alternatives. Do you really want to be part of a system that does not allow for failure?
At a minimum, I expect YCR researchers to be turning down job offers from YC companies all the time.
- zipppy 11y agoI may be missing something, but I think the person you responded to was expressing that they fear you are setting up that exact situation: that there is no room for failure.
- tmalsburg2 11y agoI fully agree with your analysis of the shortcomings of the academic system, but that's really a lame response and suggests that you didn't think this through. We're not talking about people in their early twenties who can invest some years in crazy experiments without fearing the consequences. Researchers at that stage have invested a substantial chunk of their lives in their careers and many of them have families to support. It would be foolish of them to take such a risk. If your attitude is, fuck them, it was their mistake to take up a career in academia, you will not attract the best people.
- S4M 11y agoNot sama here, not affiliated with YC, but my guess is that a talented researcher who spent some time on a bad track at YCR could keep working for YC as a scientific advisor or work for one of the YC companies that might need his/her skills, if he/she can't go back to academia.
- tlb 11y agoThe world would be a better place if more people took career risks. The evidence is that the majority of interesting stuff was created by people taking big career risks, even though they're a minority of all researchers. So people who take career risks are more likely to create something great. It sucks to lose at a career gamble but, at least in Silicon Valley, most people who fail but keep trying, end up doing pretty well.
- tmalsburg2 11y agoIncreasing risk alone does not increase the expected outcome of an enterprise, it reduces it. Risk is one important factor in the equations determining whether or not a business proposition like YCR's funding scheme is attractive, and for this reason the topic needs to be addressed. You are right that people who take more risks are more likely to create something great but the likelihood of a failure increases even more. Increasing risk therefore comes at a high price.
- avz 11y agoAt the level of an individual increased risk does indeed reduce the expected outcome of an endeavor. However, societies where individuals are willing to take higher risks end up reaping the benefits that are only accessible by taking higher risks. One example of such benefits are scientific discoveries. The current combination of risk-aversion and the focus on publications, tenure and positive results that permeates academia is antithetical to the uncertainty inherent in scientific research. It seems to me that building new research institutions like YCR with a culture that resembles the one in tech which accepts and encourages risk-taking should be a priority if we are to continue to make progress in science.
- hollaur 11y agoAmen.
- snowwrestler 11y agoHa, the top comment was basically "not every industry is like Silicon Valley," and your response (among many others) is basically "life would be better if more industries were like Silicon Valley." Ok, that might be true, but it doesn't actually change the game on the ground today. It's easy to say that "more people" should take career risks. It's harder to be the person who's spent their entire life striving toward a Ph.D. in the field of study they love, and face the (very real) possibility that they'll get one shot and that's it. Even if they can land at a Silicon Valley company (not as likely for biomedical researchers, BTW), that's not their dream. Their dream was to do groundbreaking scientific research. That's why they got their Ph.D. instead of a job in Silicon Valley. I don't think Sam addressed the commenter's concerns at all.
- Retric 11y agoMany people decide to drop out of the academic system. Working for YC, Intel, or the DoD has similar long term limitations and is hardly a foolish risk.
- lacker 11y agoMany of the best people are going to quit academia anyway. In that situation why not give YC Research a chance? Go work for a tech company if it doesn't work out.
- shamino 11y agoWith all due respect to Sam Altman and everything he's accomplished, this is a pretty snarky comment that does not spend the time to thoughtfully answer the very real concern that OP presented. It's a huge risk to leave academia to participate in the possibly career-destroying alternative that currently exists. Academia isn't perfect with respect to career opportunities, but it does produce results. There are many industries out there for which failure is hard - one of them is being an athlete in pro sports. If you aren't at the top, you won't make it to the pros. Not to say that a system that allows for failure is bad or good, but that I think it requires more thought than a simple response.
- mej10 11y agoDo you think the people that have signed up for YCR haven't considered the career risks? It seems like anyone seriously interested in being a career researcher would know how unforgiving and competitive mainstream academia is.
- tmalsburg2 11y agoThe point is: YCR may be as unforgiving if not more. As things stand, I think YCR will attract people who are either reckless or have nothing to lose. Not sure if I would want to target that audience.
- shamino 11y agoI think that people who signed up for YCR are looking for alternatives, and who will themselves be part of a biased group. In other words, it might be people who have struggled to find tenure-track positions in academia. I think I'm mainly echoing the opinion that it's a little quick to say Academia is "fucked up", since with all it's flaws, there are still great virtues, and a more thoughtful response would probably be more appreciated. I also see the tendency for people to quickly judge academia when they haven't been in academia.
- hugh4 11y agoNobody is quicker to criticise academia than academics. Mind you, nobody is quicker to defend academia when criticised by outsiders than academics too. Academia has misplaced incentives here and there and can certainly be unfair at times, but I've never actually run into any large system which didn't have those properties. Still, let's not exaggerate how screwed the incentives are. Ultimately the best way to succeed in academic science is to do good work. (Also, do a lot of it, and be good at writing about how good your work is and why it should be given lots of money.)
- cryoshon 11y agoA single alternative (your program) doesn't do much to follow up for the "fail once, fail forever" system. You'd need a healthy ecosystem of competitors to your program to accomplish that. I guess someone who failed at a project in your research program could ostensibly transition to the industry side of their field, but there's still no going back to academia once you've left.
- markkat 11y agoSpeaking as a researcher, IMO you might be belittling the OP's concern. While the YC initiative is noble, it has yet to be tested. I have worked in research and tech startups, and in very many ways the two couldn't be more different. Some of the best biotech research comes from incremental and ponderous study of minutiae, not 'ends driven' processes. From the perspective of a biotech researcher in the US, the funding model here is broken. As a result of funding levels falling for more than a decade, and universities being less willing to invest in individuals without consistent major funding, getting grants has become a very political process. I applaud YC's efforts. We need alternatives, but I am not sure that YC is interested in the same kinds of research that the legacy funding system used to support. Science is not sexy. The results can be incredibly sexy, but you never go in looking for those sexy results. EDIT: In addition, it's worth considering the difference in the peak talent age of a researcher as compared to a programmer. You can code in your bedroom as a preteen, but it's very difficult to get unfettered access to a molecular research laboratory before the age of 22. The best researchers are older, and that changes the equation in important ways.
- biswaroop 11y agoThe age aspect is interesting. Although the age of Nobel laureates has been steadily increasing, so has the 'gap' between discovery and award. [1] It's partly due to the amount of learning needed to contribute meaningfully, so starting earlier is always better. It's not that hard to get access (perhaps not unfettered) to research labs in high school. In grade 10, I talked to a professor at UCLA and started coding physics simulations for him. Many people I know worked at research labs far before the age of 22. Zenefits CEO Parker Conrad won 3rd place at the Westinghouse Talent search for neural research at age 17. Feynman started tinkering early, and Einstein taught himself geometry at age 12. If you're curious, you can push your way in. However, this isn't easy, and we need to make it easier for students to get involved earlier. At any rate, YCR will certainly find talent at all ages. [1] http://priceonomics.com/why-nobel-winning-scientists-are-getting-older/ http://priceonomics.com/why-nobel-winning-scientists-are-get...
- markkat 11y agoYes, the best most often start early. But unlike math and physics, disciplines like biomedical research are very resource intensive which leads to older talent as well. My BS was in physics, and I was coding for peer-reviewed research just over a year into my undergrad. In biotech, things are very different. It's typical for investigations that culminate in a scientific paper to take a couple of years and hundreds of thousands of dollars. We've had Seimen's Foundation Award winning high school students come out of our own lab, but these students aren't setting the course of the investigation. We don't have the money and they don't have the time. These students generally flesh out one aspect of an existing investigation. They do great work, but it would be extremely difficult for them to take a study from concept to completion. I thought my PhD research was fantastic. It was good, but geez could I have wasted YCR's money at that point. :)
- Litost 11y agoThis reminds of what Peter Higgs (of Higgs Boson fame) said "I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system" http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-system http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-b...
- apsec112 11y agoIsn't academia even more risky than YCR? ~90% of grad students, at some point in their career path, will be unable to find a tenured job and be forced to leave. What could possibly be more risky than that? YCR has some chance of failure, sure, but it has to be less than 90%.
- mcnamaratw 11y agoWhatever the details turn out to be, kudos for committing so much money to research. It'll be very exciting to see what happens.
- bholdr 11y agoWhat is the selection process and how does one apply? Here are my thoughts on the topic: http://yansh.github.io/articles/phd-distruption/ http://yansh.github.io/articles/phd-distruption/