3 ms·
I think he is largely correct in identifying the flaws of 'academic research', but he does not spend enough time discussing the whys. Academics are in an insan
by Fede_V 11y ago
I think he is largely correct in identifying the flaws of 'academic research', but he does not spend enough time discussing the whys.
Academics are in an insanely competitive environment, where what is rewarded is bringing in grants/high impact publications. There are a very select few academics that are so brilliant and have such sterling reputations they can afford to not play this game (like Matt Welsh's former advisor) but most young researchers don't have this luxury.
For example, Peter Higgs, the Nobel prize winner who postulated the existence of his namesake Boson, flat out said that: "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...). He spent several years of quiet research without publishing anything to develop his theory - a young professor doing the same now is unthinkable. The most highly successful young scientists I know now are incredibly career driven and optimize ruthlessly for the kind of output that tenure committees are looking for.
Basically, if you want researchers to incorporate best practices (tests, version control, well commented code, etc) and to actually attempt ambitious longterm research programmes, make sure that's what you reward, and remember you cannot just reward success. By definition, something ambitious has a high possibility of failure - if failing means that your career is destroyed, then people won't do it.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoThis is very important. Writers like Matt might do well to factor in the "academic" constraints much like he encourages them to do for industry. I ran into this in a discussion with Anti on prior art for Rump Kernels. Learned a bit in that discussion but his troubles getting approval stood out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10141736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10141736 I had heard about BS in academia where only paper output, grants, citations, and so on count. That Anti had to fight to get them to care about his work being implemented speaks wonders about how this works out in practice. Had he only cared about academic success, he could've dropped some light technical details and graphs in the paper then been done with it while the idea collected dust. Many benefited from him fighting the tide on it to produce good papers and an implementation. I'm not in academic circles but I bet many face the same battle. With the pressure, it might be impossible for them to produce the desired output on their own within their constraints. Or so difficult many give up. Perhaps we should encourage them to have one good line of research they string out over years for quality and ensuring delivery while doing lots of nice papers in between to keep institutions happy. Think that might work?
- thearn4 11y agoI agree with your points, in my case it was this hypercompetitiveness at the expense of meaningful contribution that drove me away from an academic career, post-PhD.
- riskneural 11y agoMe too, and I've been lucky enough to have incredible research opportunities in finance and insurance, which all go unregistered, and which have today brought me to Holland to eat this cheese plate.