4 ms·

I find it interesting that his results inspired changes in 30,000 schools but the article mentions no follow-up studies. Did nobody recognize the research oppo

I find it interesting that his results inspired changes in 30,000 schools but the article mentions no follow-up studies. Did nobody recognize the research opportunity inherent in launching these programs across so many schools? I assume the original studies used small samples. I would have been trying to collect new data from this large sample to re-test the original hypotheses.

mercer 9y ago
Based on my limited experience in the field, you would've been pressured to not do so because it's not sexy to re-test things. In fact, you'd probably be to busy writing yet another chapter of yet another a low-quality book that your PhD advisor (who somehow always happens to be good at self-marketing) or department head or whatever has to publish yet again to stay relevant, you'd be busy finding funding for some 'sexy' thing to study which is probably built on one of these shoddy studies. If you're good at self-marketing and/or going to as many conferences as possible, you might get lucky and get funding for some 'sexy' subject that you actually care about, but quite possibly you won't, and really you're just wondering if your particular skillset could be applied outside of academia. If not, well, get writing on that chapter of a book that your 'boss' wants you to write. In my opinion, even though I realize I'm missing a lot of nuance here, academia is often worse than the business world, because at least in the business world there are some concrete measures of success (selling widget x or service y). That maybe applies less to BigCorps, but still. Sorry for being ranty. I know it's not quite like that in every case, but it's the sordid story I've experienced myself (at a top research group, no less!), and been told by many PhD's in the humanities. EDIT: Let me add that I truly, greatly admire those who choose to stay in academia, diligently working at that one thing they care about. I bailed out and became a web developer, and I'm not necessarily proud of that.

mercer 9y ago

Based on my limited experience in the field, you would've been pressured to not do so because it's not sexy to re-test things. In fact, you'd probably be to busy writing yet another chapter of yet another a low-quality book that your PhD advisor (who somehow always happens to be good at self-marketing) or department head or whatever has to publish yet again to stay relevant, you'd be busy finding funding for some 'sexy' thing to study which is probably built on one of these shoddy studies. If you're good at self-marketing and/or going to as many conferences as possible, you might get lucky and get funding for some 'sexy' subject that you actually care about, but quite possibly you won't, and really you're just wondering if your particular skillset could be applied outside of academia. If not, well, get writing on that chapter of a book that your 'boss' wants you to write. In my opinion, even though I realize I'm missing a lot of nuance here, academia is often worse than the business world, because at least in the business world there are some concrete measures of success (selling widget x or service y). That maybe applies less to BigCorps, but still. Sorry for being ranty. I know it's not quite like that in every case, but it's the sordid story I've experienced myself (at a top research group, no less!), and been told by many PhD's in the humanities. EDIT: Let me add that I truly, greatly admire those who choose to stay in academia, diligently working at that one thing they care about. I bailed out and became a web developer, and I'm not necessarily proud of that.