4 ms·

Highlighting the cost of opportunity of hiring these students doesn't make the irrelevance problem of a lot of modern research any better. I'd rather teach stud

Highlighting the cost of opportunity of hiring these students doesn't make the irrelevance problem of a lot of modern research any better. I'd rather teach students to work on practical or fundamental problems and change the incentive system to do real, long-term research projects rather than pumping papers to boost up the advisor's resume and the institutional numbers. While you mention price tag, the student gets only a small part of all the funding. Most of the money goes to the institution, not to mention the advisor's summer salary.

throwawaygh 5y ago
All of those students ARE working on real problems. These papers are fun asides, not the core of the research agendas. Stop with the professional attacks against researchers until you at least take the time to read their CVs. What you we doing here is attacking peoples professional reputation. And you’re doing it without knowing anything about them. Stop. At least half the money goes to the student in stipend+core benefits, and another third covers fringe benefits and overhead - lights, bathrooms, offices, security, data centers, travel, … It’s pretty common for the total cost of an employee to be 1.5x+ their salary. Sometimes grants fund faculty summer salaries, but I kind of doubt those faculty spent any time on these specific projects.
- buitreVirtual 5y ago
  Actually, I've been there and done that. There is a huge difference between the relevance of the problems people are officially targeting and the actual substance and relevance of the research being done. I've seen first-hand that even at top institutions the priority is to maximize PR, often based on number of papers published (in prestigious-sounding venues if and when possible) and to maximize rankings to attract more students and funding. The reality is that the incentive system is wrong. Impactful, long-term research is super hard to achieve like this.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    Sounds like you washed out of a toxic lab and are now lashing out at some 20-something’s’ funny side projects.
    - buitreVirtual 5y ago
      Not at all. I'm just being realistic.
      - throwawaygh 5y ago
        You're latching onto a set of kinda transparently obvious joke papers [1] written by clearly accomplished individuals [2] and claiming that the whole institution is rotten. You're not being realistic; you're being absurd -- literally using a bunch of April Fools Day jokes as evidence that all of academia is broken. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27909164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27909164 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27911634 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27911634
      - buitreVirtual 5y ago
        Stop pretending this is about some kids. I'm talking about the system and culture today. A lot of academic research is broken and you can't pretend you don't see it. The main goal is to maximize metrics. Just look at many authors' publication lists that look like paper mills. Quantity over quality. Irreproducible results, bad study design, too many hidden variables, unrepresentative subjects. Unrealistic and oversimplistic assumptions. I've even served as subject of studies published in top venues, and I can tell that the study was a joke. It varies by the area, but this is present everywhere. Just one example: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo....
        throwawaygh 5y ago
        Again, the context of this rant is a list of actually kinda funny jokes. Just wait until this guy hears about SIGBOVIK :)

throwawaygh 5y ago

All of those students ARE working on real problems. These papers are fun asides, not the core of the research agendas. Stop with the professional attacks against researchers until you at least take the time to read their CVs. What you we doing here is attacking peoples professional reputation. And you’re doing it without knowing anything about them. Stop. At least half the money goes to the student in stipend+core benefits, and another third covers fringe benefits and overhead - lights, bathrooms, offices, security, data centers, travel, … It’s pretty common for the total cost of an employee to be 1.5x+ their salary. Sometimes grants fund faculty summer salaries, but I kind of doubt those faculty spent any time on these specific projects.

buitreVirtual 5y ago
Actually, I've been there and done that. There is a huge difference between the relevance of the problems people are officially targeting and the actual substance and relevance of the research being done. I've seen first-hand that even at top institutions the priority is to maximize PR, often based on number of papers published (in prestigious-sounding venues if and when possible) and to maximize rankings to attract more students and funding. The reality is that the incentive system is wrong. Impactful, long-term research is super hard to achieve like this.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  Sounds like you washed out of a toxic lab and are now lashing out at some 20-something’s’ funny side projects.
  - buitreVirtual 5y ago
    Not at all. I'm just being realistic.
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      You're latching onto a set of kinda transparently obvious joke papers [1] written by clearly accomplished individuals [2] and claiming that the whole institution is rotten. You're not being realistic; you're being absurd -- literally using a bunch of April Fools Day jokes as evidence that all of academia is broken. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27909164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27909164 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27911634 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27911634
    - buitreVirtual 5y ago
      Stop pretending this is about some kids. I'm talking about the system and culture today. A lot of academic research is broken and you can't pretend you don't see it. The main goal is to maximize metrics. Just look at many authors' publication lists that look like paper mills. Quantity over quality. Irreproducible results, bad study design, too many hidden variables, unrepresentative subjects. Unrealistic and oversimplistic assumptions. I've even served as subject of studies published in top venues, and I can tell that the study was a joke. It varies by the area, but this is present everywhere. Just one example: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo....
      - throwawaygh 5y ago
        Again, the context of this rant is a list of actually kinda funny jokes. Just wait until this guy hears about SIGBOVIK :)