4 ms·

The article talks more about the humanities, but my reaction was based more on thinking about the sciences. The sciences, I suppose, are a far different ballgam

by api 16y ago

The article talks more about the humanities, but my reaction was based more on thinking about the sciences. The sciences, I suppose, are a far different ballgame... if you don't make it to a tenure track position or want to skip the whole postdoc nightmare altogether, you can always get a good job in industry. That's not necessarily true if you studied, say, medieval literature. But I think what I said still stands. I think that tenure represents an example of a really expensive solution to a nasty problem. The nasty problem is that politics makes it hard to be honest, think unpopular thoughts, speak truth to power, investigate unpopular topics, etc. It's also a huge distraction and time sink. Tenure is the only solution we've come up with to this problem that's workable. It's an ugly and hugely expensive solution, but nature favors ugly solutions over no solution. In other words: it might be worth employing 10 space-filling past-their-prime tenured professors and destroying the careers of 100 aspiring students who don't make it to buy 5 free thinkers with the time and resources to ask tough questions and protection from politics. A very loose but economically similar analogy would be VC investment, where it's worth funding 99 failures to get one Google.

starkfist 16y ago
The sciences, I suppose, are a far different ballgame... if you don't make it to a tenure track position or want to skip the whole postdoc nightmare altogether, you can always get a good job in industry Unless your science PhD is in Biology. People overstate how easy it is for a science PhD to get a "good" job in industry.
- tptacek 16y ago
  I have a friend with a physics PhD who makes the same observation. The supposed ease with which a postdoc can break into industry may be unique to computer science.
  - api 16y ago
    That's a widespread problem, and I don't see how tenure affects it. The problem there is that we're no longer trying to win a cold war with the USSR, and there's no domestic demand for such things. People don't want to go to the stars. They want to gossip on Twitter.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      I think the connection to tenure is obvious. Instead of a very select few people getting a vast reward for engaging with the field, a less select few people will get a less significant reward. More people will have the opportunity to contribute, and, because the stakes will be lower, it will be less risky for academia to hire and thus easier for people to switch between industry and academia.
      - starkfist 16y ago
        The stakes are already as low as they can get. There is no shortage of postdocs who will work for peanuts. In relation to tenure, what you are proposing is already in place. When a tenured prof dies, they don't replace him, they just hire 2-3 adjunct faculty. With this in mind, the article is somewhat pointless; most universities have been in the process of effectively eliminating tenure for at least a decade. The ones that don't have billions of dollars worth of endowment money, so who really cares what they do?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I don't think it's that unique. I was in math, but I got job offers pretty easily (a few months of casually browsing startuply and HN "who's hiring" posts). I know a number of others who successfully and unsuccessfully made the leap, both coders and non (the coders did better, obviously). The key is to actually go all out in your new field. It's pretty obvious when you talk to people whether they actually want to pursue their new field, or whether they view it as a poor substitute for academia. Obviously, the latter attitude doesn't go over so well. In academic math, you prove things. In a hedge fund, if it makes money it's correct.
tptacek 16y ago
The problem is greatly exaggerated in the humanities, and it is uniquely mitigated in computer science because of the weird blip we're in over the last 20 years or so with technology. But you're understating the opportunity cost here to an extent that gravely damages your argument. It's not simply the fact that you have to get another job when you inevitably (yes, even in CS) fail to land a tenured position. It's that you've sacrificed 10-15 years of earning potential to reach that point. That's a monstrous economic cost. The top talent in the hard sciences are plenty smart enough to understand this and, accordingly, rule out a probably-doomed run for office in academia. Again, politics is dangerous, but the marketplace we've created for academic talent is even more treacherous, and may create an even greater chilling effect.

by api 16y ago

starkfist 16y ago

The sciences, I suppose, are a far different ballgame... if you don't make it to a tenure track position or want to skip the whole postdoc nightmare altogether, you can always get a good job in industry Unless your science PhD is in Biology. People overstate how easy it is for a science PhD to get a "good" job in industry.

tptacek 16y ago
I have a friend with a physics PhD who makes the same observation. The supposed ease with which a postdoc can break into industry may be unique to computer science.
- api 16y ago
  That's a widespread problem, and I don't see how tenure affects it. The problem there is that we're no longer trying to win a cold war with the USSR, and there's no domestic demand for such things. People don't want to go to the stars. They want to gossip on Twitter.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I think the connection to tenure is obvious. Instead of a very select few people getting a vast reward for engaging with the field, a less select few people will get a less significant reward. More people will have the opportunity to contribute, and, because the stakes will be lower, it will be less risky for academia to hire and thus easier for people to switch between industry and academia.
    - starkfist 16y ago
      The stakes are already as low as they can get. There is no shortage of postdocs who will work for peanuts. In relation to tenure, what you are proposing is already in place. When a tenured prof dies, they don't replace him, they just hire 2-3 adjunct faculty. With this in mind, the article is somewhat pointless; most universities have been in the process of effectively eliminating tenure for at least a decade. The ones that don't have billions of dollars worth of endowment money, so who really cares what they do?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I don't think it's that unique. I was in math, but I got job offers pretty easily (a few months of casually browsing startuply and HN "who's hiring" posts). I know a number of others who successfully and unsuccessfully made the leap, both coders and non (the coders did better, obviously). The key is to actually go all out in your new field. It's pretty obvious when you talk to people whether they actually want to pursue their new field, or whether they view it as a poor substitute for academia. Obviously, the latter attitude doesn't go over so well. In academic math, you prove things. In a hedge fund, if it makes money it's correct.

tptacek 16y ago

The problem is greatly exaggerated in the humanities, and it is uniquely mitigated in computer science because of the weird blip we're in over the last 20 years or so with technology. But you're understating the opportunity cost here to an extent that gravely damages your argument. It's not simply the fact that you have to get another job when you inevitably (yes, even in CS) fail to land a tenured position. It's that you've sacrificed 10-15 years of earning potential to reach that point. That's a monstrous economic cost. The top talent in the hard sciences are plenty smart enough to understand this and, accordingly, rule out a probably-doomed run for office in academia. Again, politics is dangerous, but the marketplace we've created for academic talent is even more treacherous, and may create an even greater chilling effect.