3 ms·
"There’s no justification for snobbery of pure over applied work." is such an important point. The most gratifying, impactful work I've done in my career has be
by Fomite 5y ago
"There’s no justification for snobbery of pure over applied work." is such an important point. The most gratifying, impactful work I've done in my career has been applied work.
The growth bit at the end is the most important one, in my opinion. In graduate school, an ecology professor of mine noted that for a field at steady state, the number of PhD students a R1 institution PI could expect to follow them on that path was 1. For a field doubling in size, it was...2.
I've approached my lab trying to be mindful of that.
- leohonexus 5y ago> the number of PhD students a R1 institution PI could expect to follow them on that path was 1 Sorry if I sound dumb, but do you mind elaborating on what you meant by R1 institution PI?
- jsweojtj 5y agoPI is Principal Investigator (think professor in charge of a research group) and R1 is the rating (top tier) research university. See a list here, https://www.brandeis.edu/diversity/dei-recruitment-hiring/outreach-institutions/r1-research.html https://www.brandeis.edu/diversity/dei-recruitment-hiring/ou...
- Fomite 5y agoNot dumb at all. Academia loves its jargon.
- InefficientRed 5y ago> for a field at steady state 1. What you mean by "steady state" really matters. 1a. There can be fields that are totally stagnant in terms of huge new intellectual advances but where the student population is exploding. 1b. There can be fields that are experiencing precipitous decline in enrollment while the intellectual and commercial field itself is in hyper-growth (CS has experienced 2 of these moments in its short history). 1c. There can be fields that are stagnant in every respect but which, for whatever reason, attract lots of funding relative to the number of occupied seats. "ML + X" for all X was like this a half decade ago or so, even for values of X in stark decline. 2. CS is growing much faster than 2x. Or at least was for the last 5-10 years. 3. Most importantly, in CS, R1 is probably the very worst type of job for a phd-holder looking to do science. You get the pay of a professor, more stress than industry, are dependent on a system that horribly exploits IC labor, and are absoutely beholden to the politics of pretty ineffectual funding agencies. R2 or teaching track CS jobs are super chill, very stable, and often pay not too much worse than R1. Industry positions come with WAY more money and often more prestige/resources.