6 ms·

An academic career should never be your only option. Make sure you study something that is useful in the real economy.

by Hermel 10y ago

pm90 10y ago
I sincerely hope that people who are genuinely excited about research do not adopt this attitude. Our affluent society allows us to specialize in what we like; allowing the best of us to create art and mathematics and make discoveries in science is as important as being a "contributing member of society".
- ghaff 10y ago
  We all have to make choices between what we enjoy and have a passion for and what pays the bills. For many of us, there is a degree of overlap though likely not 100%. Our society is not so affluent that, if what you are genuinely excited about is medieval German poetry, you can reasonably expect to be supported with that passion unless you win a very specific academic track lottery (or have other sources of income).
  - pm90 10y ago
    I was thinking more about scientific research, such as funding for pure mathematics, theoretical computer science and such. These are skills that require years of dedicated effort to master the basics and reach a level of understanding that is rigorous enough to start making original contributions and yet offer very little financial compensation in industry. You are right in that a decision has to be made in what areas we consider important enough to allow a sustainable career from it. In your example, I would certainly not fund a person for studying Medieval German poetry only; but more funding for research into history? Sure thing.
    - Karrot_Kream 10y ago
      Who decides where "funding for research into history" goes? In our STEM graduate program (a fairly prestigious one), it was pretty widely argued that you basically had to attach yourself to one of the big name grants to try and get funded. I had a few friends who had some ideas but their professors weren't too happy with those. They found a way to incorporate some of the buzzwords for a giant grant our university had, pitched it to the professor, who submitted a grant application, and got them funded on the idea. Professor was happy (he had money), students were happy, but at the end of the day, the process was idiotic.
- idiot900 10y ago
  Our affluent society doesn't actually, unless food stamps are an acceptable outcome. The affluence does not wish to provide funding for very many excited researchers.
- Meiscooldude 10y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ez-gIt08I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ez-gIt08I
- internaut 10y ago
  > Our affluent society allows us to specialize in what we like; allowing the best of us to create art and mathematics and make discoveries in science is as important as being a "contributing member of society". Yes, but this stops happening when economic growth is non-existent. The Western economy (developed countries generally), outside of Silicon Valley and a small number of bright spots, is not really growing. First let us dispense with certain lies that nearly everybody believes. The statistics about growth you always hear in the news or from politicians are fraudulent. All economic growth ultimately derives from technology - more output for less input or doing more with less. In the 1930s the growth statistics looked very bad but were actually better than they appeared because a host of new technologies were invented - artificial rubber, secondary oil recovery. Measuring this sort of thing is meaningless because every new invention is only discovered once. How the invention of the steam engine and vulcanized rubber impacts on the price network is unknown until it actually happens and the two inventions contribution to economic growth cannot be compared until they enter the price network egro... The growth stats were always at best a guess at the underlying reality. The real economy has not grown significantly since the early 70s. People who correctly point to the massive increase in computational power as marvelous should contrast that with with real energy prices in the same period. That is what the hoi polloi feel, and they are more correct about that than a supertanker packed with econometricians and politicians. This is why the hated Trump is so beloved, notice how the campaign slogan isn't 'Make America Greater', it is 'Make American Great Again'. This admission of a failure is fascinating (for a politician) and utterly ignored by the press. I don't believe it is 'the end of the world' (there was some growth after all) but people really need to pull their heads out of the asses, academics in particular. Unless we realize there is a problem we cannot adjust our positions in order to fix it. The fact is that the ideas in your head need to pay rent somehow. If the net affect is that they do not, then society fragments, which is an appropriate strategy to deal with failure through complexity. I note that the Roman Empire had a very high basic literacy rate. Normal people could read and most often poor children went to a kind of elementary school. That all got fucked when the Empire fell. It didn't happen immediately but we ultimately went 5 centuries in which only a tiny tiny elite, sometimes in the low hundreds or thousands had the ability to read and write. There is a small island off the coast of my country that held the only copies of most old Greek and Roman texts, but for that 'seedbank' saved by the monks and a passionate illiterate king (Carogolian Empire), you would know nothing of Seneca, Cicero, all the myths and legends of the Ancient World and much more besides. Kenneth Clark did an excellent documentary on the subject if you're interested. The episode is: Civilisation (1969) Episode 1 "The Skin of Our Teeth", from 13:35. Things can and do go backwards.
bsder 10y ago
> An academic career should never be your only option. Make sure you study something that is useful in the real economy. And where do the English and Economics professors that teach those STEM graduates come from, hmmmmmm? The real issue is that we graduate too many PhD's for too few positions because PhD's are nice slave labor for universities. This kind of overgraduation is true now in almost every field. We're either going to come to grips with the fact that there simply aren't enough jobs or things are going to collapse.
Al-Khwarizmi 10y ago
Can you define "the real economy"? I hope it doesn't involve law, finance, consulting, etc. as these look far less "real" than academic work to me.
- Meiscooldude 10y ago
  I wouldn't say academics is not part of the 'Real' economy. I would say that if you put all your eggs in one basket, you shouldn't expect sympathy when they break.

An academic career should never be your only option. Make sure you study something that is useful in the real economy.

by Hermel 10y ago

An academic career should never be your only option. Make sure you study something that is useful in the real economy.

pm90 10y ago

I sincerely hope that people who are genuinely excited about research do not adopt this attitude. Our affluent society allows us to specialize in what we like; allowing the best of us to create art and mathematics and make discoveries in science is as important as being a "contributing member of society".

ghaff 10y ago
We all have to make choices between what we enjoy and have a passion for and what pays the bills. For many of us, there is a degree of overlap though likely not 100%. Our society is not so affluent that, if what you are genuinely excited about is medieval German poetry, you can reasonably expect to be supported with that passion unless you win a very specific academic track lottery (or have other sources of income).
- pm90 10y ago
  I was thinking more about scientific research, such as funding for pure mathematics, theoretical computer science and such. These are skills that require years of dedicated effort to master the basics and reach a level of understanding that is rigorous enough to start making original contributions and yet offer very little financial compensation in industry. You are right in that a decision has to be made in what areas we consider important enough to allow a sustainable career from it. In your example, I would certainly not fund a person for studying Medieval German poetry only; but more funding for research into history? Sure thing.
  - Karrot_Kream 10y ago
    Who decides where "funding for research into history" goes? In our STEM graduate program (a fairly prestigious one), it was pretty widely argued that you basically had to attach yourself to one of the big name grants to try and get funded. I had a few friends who had some ideas but their professors weren't too happy with those. They found a way to incorporate some of the buzzwords for a giant grant our university had, pitched it to the professor, who submitted a grant application, and got them funded on the idea. Professor was happy (he had money), students were happy, but at the end of the day, the process was idiotic.
idiot900 10y ago
Our affluent society doesn't actually, unless food stamps are an acceptable outcome. The affluence does not wish to provide funding for very many excited researchers.
Meiscooldude 10y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ez-gIt08I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ez-gIt08I
internaut 10y ago
> Our affluent society allows us to specialize in what we like; allowing the best of us to create art and mathematics and make discoveries in science is as important as being a "contributing member of society". Yes, but this stops happening when economic growth is non-existent. The Western economy (developed countries generally), outside of Silicon Valley and a small number of bright spots, is not really growing. First let us dispense with certain lies that nearly everybody believes. The statistics about growth you always hear in the news or from politicians are fraudulent. All economic growth ultimately derives from technology - more output for less input or doing more with less. In the 1930s the growth statistics looked very bad but were actually better than they appeared because a host of new technologies were invented - artificial rubber, secondary oil recovery. Measuring this sort of thing is meaningless because every new invention is only discovered once. How the invention of the steam engine and vulcanized rubber impacts on the price network is unknown until it actually happens and the two inventions contribution to economic growth cannot be compared until they enter the price network egro... The growth stats were always at best a guess at the underlying reality. The real economy has not grown significantly since the early 70s. People who correctly point to the massive increase in computational power as marvelous should contrast that with with real energy prices in the same period. That is what the hoi polloi feel, and they are more correct about that than a supertanker packed with econometricians and politicians. This is why the hated Trump is so beloved, notice how the campaign slogan isn't 'Make America Greater', it is 'Make American Great Again'. This admission of a failure is fascinating (for a politician) and utterly ignored by the press. I don't believe it is 'the end of the world' (there was some growth after all) but people really need to pull their heads out of the asses, academics in particular. Unless we realize there is a problem we cannot adjust our positions in order to fix it. The fact is that the ideas in your head need to pay rent somehow. If the net affect is that they do not, then society fragments, which is an appropriate strategy to deal with failure through complexity. I note that the Roman Empire had a very high basic literacy rate. Normal people could read and most often poor children went to a kind of elementary school. That all got fucked when the Empire fell. It didn't happen immediately but we ultimately went 5 centuries in which only a tiny tiny elite, sometimes in the low hundreds or thousands had the ability to read and write. There is a small island off the coast of my country that held the only copies of most old Greek and Roman texts, but for that 'seedbank' saved by the monks and a passionate illiterate king (Carogolian Empire), you would know nothing of Seneca, Cicero, all the myths and legends of the Ancient World and much more besides. Kenneth Clark did an excellent documentary on the subject if you're interested. The episode is: Civilisation (1969) Episode 1 "The Skin of Our Teeth", from 13:35. Things can and do go backwards.

bsder 10y ago

> An academic career should never be your only option. Make sure you study something that is useful in the real economy. And where do the English and Economics professors that teach those STEM graduates come from, hmmmmmm? The real issue is that we graduate too many PhD's for too few positions because PhD's are nice slave labor for universities. This kind of overgraduation is true now in almost every field. We're either going to come to grips with the fact that there simply aren't enough jobs or things are going to collapse.

Al-Khwarizmi 10y ago

Can you define "the real economy"? I hope it doesn't involve law, finance, consulting, etc. as these look far less "real" than academic work to me.

Meiscooldude 10y ago
I wouldn't say academics is not part of the 'Real' economy. I would say that if you put all your eggs in one basket, you shouldn't expect sympathy when they break.