3 ms·

That’s why I said “close to”. I work in a group that has about 30-50 students, 2-3 professors, 3 scientists, 2 postdocs, and 5 techs/engineers (depending on ho

That’s why I said “close to”. I work in a group that has about 30-50 students, 2-3 professors, 3 scientists, 2 postdocs, and 5 techs/engineers (depending on how you draw the lines). Professors make $200k. Scientists make $80k. Techs make $60k. Every single person is highly competent and could easily fetch a higher wage for their skillset. Nobody’s here because they think it’s a path to a cushy life. Working among exclusively smart people, having good conversations, not being in a nasty corporate framework, and doing work with purpose are all top reasons to stay in academia. The list of reasons not to is long (and easy to come by).

bumby 6y ago
>Working among exclusively smart people, having good conversations, not being in a nasty corporate framework This is a really interesting take to me because my experience was quite different. I thought many were smart in a vary narrow field but at times lost outside of it, prone to ego-based biases, and much more concerned with publication and funding than really intellectually curious. There’s definitely pragmatic reasons for the latter but it seemed to water down the pure intentions people have brought up in this thread. Of course there were wonderful people as well, but I’ve found that in the private sector too. I guess it goes to show mileage may vary and perspective is a key component
- willis936 6y ago
  I suppose I can't really speak for academia in general. I work in an electrical engineering department that is filled with physics curriculum, problems, and culture. The EE grad students don't know many of the things I learned in EE undergrad, but have hefty physics chops. Most everyone is a combined experimentalist and theorist. The pure theorists are a little less grounded, but everyone else knows where the expertise ends and are content to not discuss things they don't know about. If my colleagues were more of the typical grant-driven hotshot type I probably wouldn't have stuck around for any amount of time.

bumby 6y ago

>Working among exclusively smart people, having good conversations, not being in a nasty corporate framework This is a really interesting take to me because my experience was quite different. I thought many were smart in a vary narrow field but at times lost outside of it, prone to ego-based biases, and much more concerned with publication and funding than really intellectually curious. There’s definitely pragmatic reasons for the latter but it seemed to water down the pure intentions people have brought up in this thread. Of course there were wonderful people as well, but I’ve found that in the private sector too. I guess it goes to show mileage may vary and perspective is a key component

willis936 6y ago
I suppose I can't really speak for academia in general. I work in an electrical engineering department that is filled with physics curriculum, problems, and culture. The EE grad students don't know many of the things I learned in EE undergrad, but have hefty physics chops. Most everyone is a combined experimentalist and theorist. The pure theorists are a little less grounded, but everyone else knows where the expertise ends and are content to not discuss things they don't know about. If my colleagues were more of the typical grant-driven hotshot type I probably wouldn't have stuck around for any amount of time.