4 ms·

The article talks about wanting to improve the system, and seems to focus on tenure as an important goal in and of itself, but in the quest to make systemic imp

by jb1991 5y ago

The article talks about wanting to improve the system, and seems to focus on tenure as an important goal in and of itself, but in the quest to make systemic improvements, it would be more well-rounded to remark on the broader debate about the true role of tenure in the world, and the many reasons why it is often not a good benefit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure#Arguments_against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure#Arguments_agai...

Topolomancer 5y ago
Author here; thanks for pointing this out! I think my focus on improving might be too myopic; so far, I have not considered alternatives to the current system at all (there are certainly some position in which you get a regular working contract similar to what you will find in industry positions, so maybe I should also be more specific when it comes to using the term 'tenure track'). As usual, it is exactly this type of comment that I appreciate in an HN discussion!
kiba 5y ago
If we want people to do long term research, tenure seems to be a good idea, especially for those who are self motivated. However, forcing professors conform to notion of performance entails the drawback and benefits and all that entails and long term risky projects neglected.
- nextos 5y ago
  Some places like HHMI/Janelia (not affiliated) are trying to hire people and give them a lot of cash and money to pursue ambitious things. I think this is the correct approach, and history shows that really successful organizations (CSHL, Bell Labs, LMB Cambridge) used to operate like this at their peak of productivity. Sadly, current universities are totally driven by metrics and corridor politics, which leads to many publications with small incremental ideas.
  - Topolomancer 5y ago
    That is my experience for some of the interviews as well, by the way. Some places give you direct metrics of papers to achieve. I can understand that you need to 'prove' yourself, but as an old 'Settlers of Catan' player, I am wondering whether 2 Nature Papers, for instance, can be exchanged for 1 Science one (or vice versa). This sort of metrics is something else :|
- Topolomancer 5y ago
  I can second this! Without an intention to sound whiny, I am sometimes astonished about the feedback I get when I propose to work on topological data analysis---the topic is still rather new and nascent, so of course there's a certain amount of risk involved. But in my experience, when you try to apply for funding that does not explicitly mention this 'high risk, high reward' dichotomy, you are in bad position. (that being said, I was happy to see that the Swiss National Science Foundation funded at least one of these proposals from me...but this was a pilot call, as far as I know, in which they were specifically soliciting these types of ideas)

by jb1991 5y ago

Topolomancer 5y ago

Author here; thanks for pointing this out! I think my focus on improving might be too myopic; so far, I have not considered alternatives to the current system at all (there are certainly some position in which you get a regular working contract similar to what you will find in industry positions, so maybe I should also be more specific when it comes to using the term 'tenure track'). As usual, it is exactly this type of comment that I appreciate in an HN discussion!

kiba 5y ago

If we want people to do long term research, tenure seems to be a good idea, especially for those who are self motivated. However, forcing professors conform to notion of performance entails the drawback and benefits and all that entails and long term risky projects neglected.

nextos 5y ago
Some places like HHMI/Janelia (not affiliated) are trying to hire people and give them a lot of cash and money to pursue ambitious things. I think this is the correct approach, and history shows that really successful organizations (CSHL, Bell Labs, LMB Cambridge) used to operate like this at their peak of productivity. Sadly, current universities are totally driven by metrics and corridor politics, which leads to many publications with small incremental ideas.
- Topolomancer 5y ago
  That is my experience for some of the interviews as well, by the way. Some places give you direct metrics of papers to achieve. I can understand that you need to 'prove' yourself, but as an old 'Settlers of Catan' player, I am wondering whether 2 Nature Papers, for instance, can be exchanged for 1 Science one (or vice versa). This sort of metrics is something else :|
Topolomancer 5y ago
I can second this! Without an intention to sound whiny, I am sometimes astonished about the feedback I get when I propose to work on topological data analysis---the topic is still rather new and nascent, so of course there's a certain amount of risk involved. But in my experience, when you try to apply for funding that does not explicitly mention this 'high risk, high reward' dichotomy, you are in bad position. (that being said, I was happy to see that the Swiss National Science Foundation funded at least one of these proposals from me...but this was a pilot call, as far as I know, in which they were specifically soliciting these types of ideas)