3 ms·

Another important lesson I want to share is that science (as most all other professions) has become corrupt and your career outcome will largely depend on who y

Another important lesson I want to share is that science (as most all other professions) has become corrupt and your career outcome will largely depend on who you know, who knows you, who you strike deals with, etc... disregarding your actual achievements and talent. It would be a mistake for somebody in the current age to think of it as a meritocracy. So, if you're a young scientist, decide if it's worth the squeeze and plan accordingly.

rodrigosetti 5y ago
What career is a meritocracy?
- moralestapia 5y ago
  There are still some instances in the industry where merit works. There's close to zero of that left in academia.
  - glofish 5y ago
    I think it is unfair to say close to zero, just that it is far less than what most people expect of science
    - earthscienceman 5y ago
      Not only that, but I hate to be the bearer of bad news... It has always been that way. Science was the domain of wealthy white men who came from thoroughbred backgrounds. It's more of a meritocracy than ever, in some ways, in that you can pay to attend a university and you can shoehorn your way into the system. I'm a scientist, I grew up in a single parent family with zero academic background. However, this is not the norm, and it's a rough road full of petty bullshit and gatekeeping... choose accordingly. I don't know what it is with HN and this fetishism for the past and its superior ethical and technical state. It's, as a general rule, entirely false. Any time you read "things aren't like they used to be" it should trigger intense skepticism. In fact, things used to be awful. It was just accepted as the norm and poorly documented in their reasons for being awful and now we have forums where the public can easily and openly discuss such issues.
      - glofish 5y ago
        I think your reply confounds two distinct issues accessibility: (gatekeeping) and ability to succeed in the field. The merit can be thought in two ways - Can people that want to and deserve to be scientists become one? - Once you are scientists, will hard work and ability reward you with a satisfying career? I agree that in the former we made great progress and the situation is better than ever. But at the same time I also think the latter, which is closer to what the word "meritocracy" means, is in worse shape than ever
        earthscienceman 5y ago
        You make excellent points and we completely agree. I'm in a huge slump for exactly this. I've spent the last three years building an extremely useful proof of concept for environmental monitoring and being rewarded for it is literally an active fight. However, this is primarily tied to the incentives in place for judging science. Extremely important work often has no value in the current structure, due to all of the publish-or-perish and University hierarchies that have been written about ad-nauseum but that have yet to significantly change. I have nothing meaningful to add to that conversation in fact. We know what the problems are. We just don't fix them.
        lnwlebjel 5y ago
        > building an extremely useful proof of concept for environmental monitoring and being rewarded for it is literally an active fight. It seems that it has always been this way. See "How Innovation Works" by Matt Ridley for many examples - and fight on.
        moralestapia 5y ago
        >Can people that want to and deserve to be scientists become one? The problem with that is that it could always be treated as a subjective measurement. And who are you going to appoint for that? The people who are already in the system. Surprise, you have created (again) the perfect conditions for nepotism to arise.
      - brainmapper 5y ago
    - moralestapia 5y ago
      >it is unfair to say close to zero No, it's not. I could write a book with all the extreme situations of abuse I've witnessed first-hand while in academia. None of that would fly in a private company, simply because there is at least, like it or not, a premise of making the company profitable that still somehow favors merit over other things. You don't have that in academia, there are many instances in there where there is literally NO incentive to act in good faith. Look at what happened at Uber, for instance, it took a while but the CEO got ousted and they took a hit on their public image. There are many (MANY) instances of sexual abuse and coercion that have been going on for DECADES at some of the world's most recognized institutions, and nothing happens. Some people are just untouchable in their little academic universes. Do not speak about something you don't know in depth. The image that the regular folk has romanticized about science is false and needs to disappear, because it only favors those who are abusing the system to their benefit.
      - cycomanic 5y ago
        You making some pretty wild assertions without evidence to back them up. Academia is by no means a paradise and there are lots of problems (largely caused by how academia is funded and the resulting incentive structures). Problems also include abuse etc., but the picture you paint is neither accurate nor warranted. It seems like your view is clouded by some bad experiences you've had, but you can't generalize those. And I do know what I'm talking about.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

rodrigosetti 5y ago

What career is a meritocracy?

moralestapia 5y ago
There are still some instances in the industry where merit works. There's close to zero of that left in academia.
- glofish 5y ago
  I think it is unfair to say close to zero, just that it is far less than what most people expect of science
  - earthscienceman 5y ago
    Not only that, but I hate to be the bearer of bad news... It has always been that way. Science was the domain of wealthy white men who came from thoroughbred backgrounds. It's more of a meritocracy than ever, in some ways, in that you can pay to attend a university and you can shoehorn your way into the system. I'm a scientist, I grew up in a single parent family with zero academic background. However, this is not the norm, and it's a rough road full of petty bullshit and gatekeeping... choose accordingly. I don't know what it is with HN and this fetishism for the past and its superior ethical and technical state. It's, as a general rule, entirely false. Any time you read "things aren't like they used to be" it should trigger intense skepticism. In fact, things used to be awful. It was just accepted as the norm and poorly documented in their reasons for being awful and now we have forums where the public can easily and openly discuss such issues.
    - glofish 5y ago
      I think your reply confounds two distinct issues accessibility: (gatekeeping) and ability to succeed in the field. The merit can be thought in two ways - Can people that want to and deserve to be scientists become one? - Once you are scientists, will hard work and ability reward you with a satisfying career? I agree that in the former we made great progress and the situation is better than ever. But at the same time I also think the latter, which is closer to what the word "meritocracy" means, is in worse shape than ever
      - earthscienceman 5y ago
        You make excellent points and we completely agree. I'm in a huge slump for exactly this. I've spent the last three years building an extremely useful proof of concept for environmental monitoring and being rewarded for it is literally an active fight. However, this is primarily tied to the incentives in place for judging science. Extremely important work often has no value in the current structure, due to all of the publish-or-perish and University hierarchies that have been written about ad-nauseum but that have yet to significantly change. I have nothing meaningful to add to that conversation in fact. We know what the problems are. We just don't fix them.
        lnwlebjel 5y ago
        > building an extremely useful proof of concept for environmental monitoring and being rewarded for it is literally an active fight. It seems that it has always been this way. See "How Innovation Works" by Matt Ridley for many examples - and fight on.
      - moralestapia 5y ago
        >Can people that want to and deserve to be scientists become one? The problem with that is that it could always be treated as a subjective measurement. And who are you going to appoint for that? The people who are already in the system. Surprise, you have created (again) the perfect conditions for nepotism to arise.
    - brainmapper 5y ago
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    >it is unfair to say close to zero No, it's not. I could write a book with all the extreme situations of abuse I've witnessed first-hand while in academia. None of that would fly in a private company, simply because there is at least, like it or not, a premise of making the company profitable that still somehow favors merit over other things. You don't have that in academia, there are many instances in there where there is literally NO incentive to act in good faith. Look at what happened at Uber, for instance, it took a while but the CEO got ousted and they took a hit on their public image. There are many (MANY) instances of sexual abuse and coercion that have been going on for DECADES at some of the world's most recognized institutions, and nothing happens. Some people are just untouchable in their little academic universes. Do not speak about something you don't know in depth. The image that the regular folk has romanticized about science is false and needs to disappear, because it only favors those who are abusing the system to their benefit.
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      You making some pretty wild assertions without evidence to back them up. Academia is by no means a paradise and there are lots of problems (largely caused by how academia is funded and the resulting incentive structures). Problems also include abuse etc., but the picture you paint is neither accurate nor warranted. It seems like your view is clouded by some bad experiences you've had, but you can't generalize those. And I do know what I'm talking about.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]