4 ms·

This is one of many confused articles based on Venkatesh's research. The point of the original work is that drug gangs, despite being criminal organizations, ha

by samth 6y ago

This is one of many confused articles based on Venkatesh's research. The point of the original work is that drug gangs, despite being criminal organizations, have a ladder hierarchy and low wages at the bottom, just like many other "normal" jobs at conventional institutions, like mcdonalds or academia. Subsequently, many people have written silly articles like this one saying that some conventional organization is like a drug gangs because it has these totally normal features. But we knew that already -- that grad students get paid less than full professors is hardly news. The inclusion of drug gangs just produces a snappy headline and reduces understanding.

SeanLuke 6y ago
It is a silly article, but there is an important distinction that I think you're missing. In a typical hierarchical organization there is a clear heterogeneity in job skills. The fry cook at McDonalds does not have, and will likely never have, the skills necessary to become an executive. Similarly in a law firm the secretary cannot advance to become a law partner: he is not a lawyer. There is no expectation that the line worker would ever become the CEO, at least not without going back to school. But in academia, and I suppose in a criminal gang, everyone has the same skillset. PhDs are notionally being trained with the specific abilities necessary to become a professor. Those at the very bottom have the capability to move to the very top, and likewise are hoping to do so.
- grawprog 6y ago
  Just like a drug gang too, there's striking. To be an RP bio, at least at the time I was looking into it, you needed 3 years of field experience, a paper published in a reputable journal and you had to pay a $10,000 yearly fee to the association of applied biology and attend a few of their meetings and stuff. That's if you wanted the ability to sign your name on government projects, otherwise, you had to just find and pay someone willing to write their name on your project.
  - SeanLuke 6y ago
    In the US, to be a computer science professor you generally only need a PhD in CS, which you're getting as a PhD grad student. It helps to also have some good publications under your belt and a good thesis and a good advisor. But these are all things a PhD student can achieve. No fees, no field experience, none of that stuff. No special requirements for obtaining grant funding. This is the case for a great many academic fields.
    - grawprog 6y ago
      I can only speak for what it was like as a biologist, which does have such artificial barriers.
- samth 6y ago
  Job heterogeneity doesn't distinguish these situations nearly that much. The relevant comparison between academia and McDonald's is probably between regular employee and store manager/PhD Student and professor. In both cases promotion to the next level is plausible and happens regularly. If we consider non-lawyers employed by a law firm, then we should do the same with a university, which would distinguish both from the drug gang/McDonald's type where the bottom run has more promotion opportunity. Of course, this isn't even really right about academia -- a large university employs lots of people at many levels and it's perfectly possible to be promoted from administrative assistant to a management role. It is true that some professions, such as university faculty, law, and medicine, have specific credential requirements that limit advancement into those professions from other parts of the organizations that employ such professionals. But this is a way that academia etc is _different from_ a drug gang, not similar to it.
- barumi 6y ago
  > But in academia, and I suppose in a criminal gang, everyone has the same skillset. PhDs are notionally being trained with the specific abilities necessary to become a professor. They really aren't. First of all, scientifically speaking each PhD is unique as it focuses on specific venues of research. Thus within the same research group you often have an extremely diverse crowd doing independent research on multiple projects at the same time. Then there's the fact that the assertion about "being trained (...) to become a professor" makes no sense. PhD students are trained to conduct independent research on a specific subject, and rarely also on how to apply to research grants. Being a professor, which is more of a supervisor/administrator role, is not factored into the equation, and the teaching component is a very small and tangential aspect of being a professor. The truth of the matter is that graduate schools are effectively diploma mills to entice prospective workers to work long hours for low wages in exchange for a qualification and shot at a research career. Their work is focused on learning how to do research while focusing on a specialized topic, which arguably has no parallel with what a professor does.

by samth 6y ago

SeanLuke 6y ago

It is a silly article, but there is an important distinction that I think you're missing. In a typical hierarchical organization there is a clear heterogeneity in job skills. The fry cook at McDonalds does not have, and will likely never have, the skills necessary to become an executive. Similarly in a law firm the secretary cannot advance to become a law partner: he is not a lawyer. There is no expectation that the line worker would ever become the CEO, at least not without going back to school. But in academia, and I suppose in a criminal gang, everyone has the same skillset. PhDs are notionally being trained with the specific abilities necessary to become a professor. Those at the very bottom have the capability to move to the very top, and likewise are hoping to do so.

grawprog 6y ago
Just like a drug gang too, there's striking. To be an RP bio, at least at the time I was looking into it, you needed 3 years of field experience, a paper published in a reputable journal and you had to pay a $10,000 yearly fee to the association of applied biology and attend a few of their meetings and stuff. That's if you wanted the ability to sign your name on government projects, otherwise, you had to just find and pay someone willing to write their name on your project.
- SeanLuke 6y ago
  In the US, to be a computer science professor you generally only need a PhD in CS, which you're getting as a PhD grad student. It helps to also have some good publications under your belt and a good thesis and a good advisor. But these are all things a PhD student can achieve. No fees, no field experience, none of that stuff. No special requirements for obtaining grant funding. This is the case for a great many academic fields.
  - grawprog 6y ago
    I can only speak for what it was like as a biologist, which does have such artificial barriers.
samth 6y ago
Job heterogeneity doesn't distinguish these situations nearly that much. The relevant comparison between academia and McDonald's is probably between regular employee and store manager/PhD Student and professor. In both cases promotion to the next level is plausible and happens regularly. If we consider non-lawyers employed by a law firm, then we should do the same with a university, which would distinguish both from the drug gang/McDonald's type where the bottom run has more promotion opportunity. Of course, this isn't even really right about academia -- a large university employs lots of people at many levels and it's perfectly possible to be promoted from administrative assistant to a management role. It is true that some professions, such as university faculty, law, and medicine, have specific credential requirements that limit advancement into those professions from other parts of the organizations that employ such professionals. But this is a way that academia etc is _different from_ a drug gang, not similar to it.
barumi 6y ago
> But in academia, and I suppose in a criminal gang, everyone has the same skillset. PhDs are notionally being trained with the specific abilities necessary to become a professor. They really aren't. First of all, scientifically speaking each PhD is unique as it focuses on specific venues of research. Thus within the same research group you often have an extremely diverse crowd doing independent research on multiple projects at the same time. Then there's the fact that the assertion about "being trained (...) to become a professor" makes no sense. PhD students are trained to conduct independent research on a specific subject, and rarely also on how to apply to research grants. Being a professor, which is more of a supervisor/administrator role, is not factored into the equation, and the teaching component is a very small and tangential aspect of being a professor. The truth of the matter is that graduate schools are effectively diploma mills to entice prospective workers to work long hours for low wages in exchange for a qualification and shot at a research career. Their work is focused on learning how to do research while focusing on a specialized topic, which arguably has no parallel with what a professor does.