4 ms·

This is a recurring topic on HN. My (European) experience is that academia provides a great work environment. If you have tenure, you're free to work on whatev

This is a recurring topic on HN. My (European) experience is that academia provides a great work environment. If you have tenure, you're free to work on whatever you want, you have very low pressure (beside the pressure you decide to inflict on yourself), you're basically paid to learn new things and teach them to others. You can easily visit other institutes abroad. You get to meet interesting people. Age discrimination isn't an issue. The salary isn't on par with what you could make working for a company but it's enough. If you're ambitious and talented you can easily earn money on the side (consulting, starting your own company, taking a leave) and you can have the best of both worlds.

zerr 8y ago
The problem is getting a tenure position - with all these nepotism, protectionism, elitism of academic world.
- PAClearner 8y ago
  meh as a baby academic I am not convinced that the nepotism protectionism elitism of academia are markedly higher than the 'real world'
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    The big difference is the workplace variety. You can work at start ups, small businesses, mid-sized companies, or mega-corporate, or even government jobs. It isn't that they don't exist there but that it is easier to escape certain types of it.
aluren 8y ago
Yes, I believe we have it easier in Europe. I realize my other post sounds rantish but the reason I'm still in academia, beyond the very valid points you've mentioned, is that I don't believe the nepotism and dishonesty issues are specific to academia. >You get to meet interesting people. I want to stress that part because I don't feel it does the environment justice. You get to meet fantastic and very intelligent people from all countries in the world. During gathering events, meetings, parties, etc. I've been to, it's not rare to see eight different nationalities out of eight people around a dining table. You talk about science at first but very quickly discussions derail into comparisons between such and such country's perspective, differences in culture, jokes about the language, and so on. And it happens every time. Not all environments provide this. Of course, you may argue that this diversity of culture and insights is counterbalanced by the community's homogeneity in many other aspects (e.g. the overwhelming majority of scientists are very liberal, even by European standards), and it's pretty obvious that your view of, say, Iranian or Russian people is going to be skewed if the only ones you've talked to are very educated and liberal 20- or 30-somethings working as expats. Scientists are known for their insularity, and while they're a demographic that's among the most susceptible to date outside their country, they're also very prone to date inside the community. The 'ivory tower' stereotype is not completely wrong.
- PAClearner 8y ago
  being around really smart people doing interesting things is pretty great.
- pjscott 8y ago
  This is also one of the great things about working in Silicon Valley.
- gdy 8y ago
  What is special about "Iranian or Russian people"?
  - aluren 8y ago
    The sensibilities of expats from these countries tend to be quite misaligned with that of their governments and a large chunk of their fellow countrymen. It is of course the case with almost every country but the divide can be markedly stronger in some countries.
    - gdy 8y ago
      Do you have any evidence allowing you to single out these two countries?
      - aluren 8y ago
        Well no, I don't have 'evidence'. I just report what the expats in question tell me. I'm not singling them out, they just came to my mind due to recent conversations. I'm not trying to make a grander point or anything, and not every remark has to be completely exhaustive and evidenced to be 'allowed' into a casual conversation. If you want me to source every statement I make, you're going to have to pay me, just like my boss does when I write papers.
        gdy 8y ago
        >I'm not singling them out But you did it and you did it with the "it's pretty obvious" qualifier. This casual bias needs to be corrected.
scott_s 8y ago
Life is also pretty great if you win the lottery. But it's not wise to plan on it. One of the main points brought up here and elsewhere is that getting a tenure-track position is hard: you're basically in a giant tournament. And that tournament continues to actually get tenure. So I don't disagree with you, but you're starting from the assumption that one has tenure, which is very much not a given for the vast majority of grad students. (Yes, yes, I'm aware this is not strictly true and that many lottery winners end up declaring bankruptcy and often report being miserable. But it works as an illustration.)
- yodsanklai 8y ago
  Getting a job in academia is not entirely random :) Just like for any competitive job, it's important to objectively assess chances of success and reconsider them along the way. There are many things to consider. How bright you are, what is your research topic and will it be popular in a few years, who is your PhD advisor, are you willing to work abroad and so on... But I agree that there is uncertainty for most people and graduate students should have an exit plan, e.g. keep their research or teaching work relevant to the job market.

zerr 8y ago

The problem is getting a tenure position - with all these nepotism, protectionism, elitism of academic world.

PAClearner 8y ago
meh as a baby academic I am not convinced that the nepotism protectionism elitism of academia are markedly higher than the 'real world'
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  The big difference is the workplace variety. You can work at start ups, small businesses, mid-sized companies, or mega-corporate, or even government jobs. It isn't that they don't exist there but that it is easier to escape certain types of it.

aluren 8y ago

Yes, I believe we have it easier in Europe. I realize my other post sounds rantish but the reason I'm still in academia, beyond the very valid points you've mentioned, is that I don't believe the nepotism and dishonesty issues are specific to academia. >You get to meet interesting people. I want to stress that part because I don't feel it does the environment justice. You get to meet fantastic and very intelligent people from all countries in the world. During gathering events, meetings, parties, etc. I've been to, it's not rare to see eight different nationalities out of eight people around a dining table. You talk about science at first but very quickly discussions derail into comparisons between such and such country's perspective, differences in culture, jokes about the language, and so on. And it happens every time. Not all environments provide this. Of course, you may argue that this diversity of culture and insights is counterbalanced by the community's homogeneity in many other aspects (e.g. the overwhelming majority of scientists are very liberal, even by European standards), and it's pretty obvious that your view of, say, Iranian or Russian people is going to be skewed if the only ones you've talked to are very educated and liberal 20- or 30-somethings working as expats. Scientists are known for their insularity, and while they're a demographic that's among the most susceptible to date outside their country, they're also very prone to date inside the community. The 'ivory tower' stereotype is not completely wrong.

PAClearner 8y ago
being around really smart people doing interesting things is pretty great.
pjscott 8y ago
This is also one of the great things about working in Silicon Valley.
gdy 8y ago
What is special about "Iranian or Russian people"?
- aluren 8y ago
  The sensibilities of expats from these countries tend to be quite misaligned with that of their governments and a large chunk of their fellow countrymen. It is of course the case with almost every country but the divide can be markedly stronger in some countries.
  - gdy 8y ago
    Do you have any evidence allowing you to single out these two countries?
    - aluren 8y ago
      Well no, I don't have 'evidence'. I just report what the expats in question tell me. I'm not singling them out, they just came to my mind due to recent conversations. I'm not trying to make a grander point or anything, and not every remark has to be completely exhaustive and evidenced to be 'allowed' into a casual conversation. If you want me to source every statement I make, you're going to have to pay me, just like my boss does when I write papers.
      - gdy 8y ago
        >I'm not singling them out But you did it and you did it with the "it's pretty obvious" qualifier. This casual bias needs to be corrected.

scott_s 8y ago

Life is also pretty great if you win the lottery. But it's not wise to plan on it. One of the main points brought up here and elsewhere is that getting a tenure-track position is hard: you're basically in a giant tournament. And that tournament continues to actually get tenure. So I don't disagree with you, but you're starting from the assumption that one has tenure, which is very much not a given for the vast majority of grad students. (Yes, yes, I'm aware this is not strictly true and that many lottery winners end up declaring bankruptcy and often report being miserable. But it works as an illustration.)

yodsanklai 8y ago
Getting a job in academia is not entirely random :) Just like for any competitive job, it's important to objectively assess chances of success and reconsider them along the way. There are many things to consider. How bright you are, what is your research topic and will it be popular in a few years, who is your PhD advisor, are you willing to work abroad and so on... But I agree that there is uncertainty for most people and graduate students should have an exit plan, e.g. keep their research or teaching work relevant to the job market.