3 ms·

How can he know whether that's actually true? Everyone is troubled by the current state of science. How can we know whether that's not the standard old man's wi

How can he know whether that's actually true? Everyone is troubled by the current state of science. How can we know whether that's not the standard old man's wish for the good old days?

mafribe 10y ago
This is a really good question. As an old man in science who feels strongly that it was much better in the past (less admin, less evaluation BS, less pressure for funding etc), I do worry sometimes that the past wasn't better, and the undivided attention I could give to research as a PhD/postdoc was simply a tranquil niche my supervisor had carved out for his students (as I do for mine today), but that he faced similar pressures.
OJFord 10y ago
I don't believe that's true of Higgs, since he said it of a period in which he was still 'in the system': > Higgs said he became "an embarrassment to the department > when they did research assessment exercises". A message > would go around the department saying: "Please give a > list of your recent publications." Higgs said: "I would > send back a statement: 'None.' " > > By the time he retired in 1996, he was uncomfortable > with the new academic culture.
- greeneggs 10y ago
  He retired in 1996, but judging from his CV it looks like he stopped doing research in the 1960s or 70s. [1] His last research paper was published in 1979, and the paper before that was published in 1966. Perhaps he was an excellent teacher, but it doesn't seem like he needed to be in a research university. [1] http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/higgs/peter-higgs http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/higgs/peter-higgs
  - OJFord 10y ago
    I read it as yours being exactly the view he disliked; that his lack of published research papers did not correspond to any lack of his doing research.
    - greeneggs 10y ago
      I don't know if he was doing research or not. (And I'm not trying to judge him either way, since I know almost nothing about him.) But when he was doing his Nobel-winning work, he was publishing on average about one paper per year. Then he published one paper in 13 years, and then zero papers in 17 years (and never again). He could have been doing research but unsuccessfully. He didn't lose his job. (One might argue that he should have, but I won't.) He just said that he would have a hard time finding a different job. Isn't that obvious? If you are looking for a new job at a research university with zero publications for 17 years, you can hardly expect departments to be dying to hire you. I think most people in that situation are not doing any research. Most researchers with ambitious research projects still manage to publish occasionally, not just for "the system" but for themselves. You want to know that you are making at least a little progress on something. Andrew Wiles, for example, published every year or two throughout his work, with the exception of one four-year gap. [1] No 17-year gap. [1] http://web.math.princeton.edu/WebCV/WilesBIB.pdf http://web.math.princeton.edu/WebCV/WilesBIB.pdf

How can he know whether that's actually true? Everyone is troubled by the current state of science. How can we know whether that's not the standard old man's wish for the good old days?

mafribe 10y ago

This is a really good question. As an old man in science who feels strongly that it was much better in the past (less admin, less evaluation BS, less pressure for funding etc), I do worry sometimes that the past wasn't better, and the undivided attention I could give to research as a PhD/postdoc was simply a tranquil niche my supervisor had carved out for his students (as I do for mine today), but that he faced similar pressures.

OJFord 10y ago

I don't believe that's true of Higgs, since he said it of a period in which he was still 'in the system': > Higgs said he became "an embarrassment to the department > when they did research assessment exercises". A message > would go around the department saying: "Please give a > list of your recent publications." Higgs said: "I would > send back a statement: 'None.' " > > By the time he retired in 1996, he was uncomfortable > with the new academic culture.

greeneggs 10y ago
He retired in 1996, but judging from his CV it looks like he stopped doing research in the 1960s or 70s. [1] His last research paper was published in 1979, and the paper before that was published in 1966. Perhaps he was an excellent teacher, but it doesn't seem like he needed to be in a research university. [1] http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/higgs/peter-higgs http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/higgs/peter-higgs
- OJFord 10y ago
  I read it as yours being exactly the view he disliked; that his lack of published research papers did not correspond to any lack of his doing research.
  - greeneggs 10y ago
    I don't know if he was doing research or not. (And I'm not trying to judge him either way, since I know almost nothing about him.) But when he was doing his Nobel-winning work, he was publishing on average about one paper per year. Then he published one paper in 13 years, and then zero papers in 17 years (and never again). He could have been doing research but unsuccessfully. He didn't lose his job. (One might argue that he should have, but I won't.) He just said that he would have a hard time finding a different job. Isn't that obvious? If you are looking for a new job at a research university with zero publications for 17 years, you can hardly expect departments to be dying to hire you. I think most people in that situation are not doing any research. Most researchers with ambitious research projects still manage to publish occasionally, not just for "the system" but for themselves. You want to know that you are making at least a little progress on something. Andrew Wiles, for example, published every year or two throughout his work, with the exception of one four-year gap. [1] No 17-year gap. [1] http://web.math.princeton.edu/WebCV/WilesBIB.pdf http://web.math.princeton.edu/WebCV/WilesBIB.pdf