5 ms·

Why are highly qualified folks like your friends not going into industry instead?

ouid 5y ago
Well, the post was written by someone who clearly doesn't understand their friends motives, yeah? Perhaps they don't want to work in ad-tech because that would not give them satisfaction.
- gwd 5y ago
  I specifically said that the situation in CS was better, because industry does such a good job competing for PhDs. When I was finishing my PhD in CS 15 years ago, doing a post-doc before applying for a tenure-track position was pretty rare, and only done if you felt that you'd benefit from it in some way. My friends are in the sciences, which has far fewer opportunities in industry. They're not going to end up in ad-tech either way.
gwd 5y ago
I think there's a mix of reasons. One is that they see it as a kind of failure -- like, for them to pursue a job in industry is to admit that they just weren't good enough for academia. This is part of the "cult" aspect I was talking about. Another is the unknown -- they feel like they have a reasonable amount of freedom to choose what to do when they're in academia, and fear that when moving to industry they'll just have to do whatever they're told; not knowing that at their level, they'd have more freedom in industry (and they have more restrictions in academia) than they realize. Another I think is the "almost there" aspect: a combination of the sunk costs fallacy and optimism. If you'd told my friend at the age of 30 that he'd still be on 2-year contracts at the age of 50, he probably would have chosen a different career path. But at each stage, it always seems like getting something permanent might be 3-5 years away. Related to this is the known: one friend genuinely likes and respects his PE, and feels a loyalty to him. How can I tell him that in my opinion, if his PE actually cared about him, he would be shoving him out the door and telling him to go into industry, rather than making noises about possibly finding money for him to keep working for him for another 2-3 years (at which point he'll again have the prospect of losing his job)? I mean, I'm sure his PE actually is a good person and just hasn't thought seriously about the situation; but that doesn't really excuse him. I do try to hint at these things, but how do you tell someone that you think this thing that they are passionate about and in love with -- something they've invested decades of their life in -- is actually toxic and abusive?
- dekhn 5y ago
  I took the attitude that moving to industry was just a phase in my academic career; in my case it opened up many new doors for my research. But this is not common. Also, the real reason to move it industry is better work life balance. If you choose your employer wisely you can work about 20% of a day and make 50% above market, then retire 5-10 years earlier.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    Industry tends to have differing ideologies than academia. Generally academia is about open knowledge while industry is about closed knowledge driven by profits and greed. Not saying there aren't some greedy administrators in universities, it's definitely a growing problem, but in industry it's the defining characteristic.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      yes, but my experince was precisely the opposite. at least partly because of the company I chose, the time at which I chose, and the prep work I did.
      - balsam 5y ago
        wonder if you’d be willing to share what company that you joined was? I gather an academic would readily give away the name of the institution that looked after them, hopefully the same would be true for those who make it in industry?
        dekhn 5y ago
        I worked at Google and ran the Exacycle project, see https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2014/02/stanford-and-google-team-up-to-simulate-key-drug-receptor.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2014/02/stanford-and-... At the time, google was very open to its software engineers doing interesting 20% projects that led to scientific papers, but I wasn't ever able to join the research org fulltime and be a researcher.
willis936 5y ago
Because industry runs on profits. The dream is to have resources given to you to push forward human intellect without having to answer to short term profits. The most useful math today had limited applications when it was invented. Society doesn't highly value these highly valuable contributions, so there is a scarcity in research resources while having the most alluring work. The result? Highly talented people living in apartments with no prospect of affording a family. In support of my point: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/figure/18 https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/figure/18 Academia spends 13% of society's overall basic research money yet produces 48% of the overall performance. I don't think tripling public research funding should triple public research output. I think it would give some breathing room for the fantastical "meritocracy" belief to be closer to reality in one sector of society. Also, academia needs to cut the g&a chuff.
namelessoracle 5y ago
The real actual answer might be around the idea of Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right when it comes to Left and Right cultural elites. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/137/1/1/6383014 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/137/1/1/6383014 Basically going into industry would be removing themselves from the Brahmin caste and trying to go into the Merchant caste and that just wont do.
- hellisothers 5y ago
  I haven’t heard that way of saying it but this is exactly what I was going to say only better :)

ouid 5y ago

Well, the post was written by someone who clearly doesn't understand their friends motives, yeah? Perhaps they don't want to work in ad-tech because that would not give them satisfaction.

gwd 5y ago
I specifically said that the situation in CS was better, because industry does such a good job competing for PhDs. When I was finishing my PhD in CS 15 years ago, doing a post-doc before applying for a tenure-track position was pretty rare, and only done if you felt that you'd benefit from it in some way. My friends are in the sciences, which has far fewer opportunities in industry. They're not going to end up in ad-tech either way.

gwd 5y ago

I think there's a mix of reasons. One is that they see it as a kind of failure -- like, for them to pursue a job in industry is to admit that they just weren't good enough for academia. This is part of the "cult" aspect I was talking about. Another is the unknown -- they feel like they have a reasonable amount of freedom to choose what to do when they're in academia, and fear that when moving to industry they'll just have to do whatever they're told; not knowing that at their level, they'd have more freedom in industry (and they have more restrictions in academia) than they realize. Another I think is the "almost there" aspect: a combination of the sunk costs fallacy and optimism. If you'd told my friend at the age of 30 that he'd still be on 2-year contracts at the age of 50, he probably would have chosen a different career path. But at each stage, it always seems like getting something permanent might be 3-5 years away. Related to this is the known: one friend genuinely likes and respects his PE, and feels a loyalty to him. How can I tell him that in my opinion, if his PE actually cared about him, he would be shoving him out the door and telling him to go into industry, rather than making noises about possibly finding money for him to keep working for him for another 2-3 years (at which point he'll again have the prospect of losing his job)? I mean, I'm sure his PE actually is a good person and just hasn't thought seriously about the situation; but that doesn't really excuse him. I do try to hint at these things, but how do you tell someone that you think this thing that they are passionate about and in love with -- something they've invested decades of their life in -- is actually toxic and abusive?

dekhn 5y ago
I took the attitude that moving to industry was just a phase in my academic career; in my case it opened up many new doors for my research. But this is not common. Also, the real reason to move it industry is better work life balance. If you choose your employer wisely you can work about 20% of a day and make 50% above market, then retire 5-10 years earlier.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Industry tends to have differing ideologies than academia. Generally academia is about open knowledge while industry is about closed knowledge driven by profits and greed. Not saying there aren't some greedy administrators in universities, it's definitely a growing problem, but in industry it's the defining characteristic.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    yes, but my experince was precisely the opposite. at least partly because of the company I chose, the time at which I chose, and the prep work I did.
    - balsam 5y ago
      wonder if you’d be willing to share what company that you joined was? I gather an academic would readily give away the name of the institution that looked after them, hopefully the same would be true for those who make it in industry?
      - dekhn 5y ago
        I worked at Google and ran the Exacycle project, see https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2014/02/stanford-and-google-team-up-to-simulate-key-drug-receptor.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2014/02/stanford-and-... At the time, google was very open to its software engineers doing interesting 20% projects that led to scientific papers, but I wasn't ever able to join the research org fulltime and be a researcher.

willis936 5y ago

Because industry runs on profits. The dream is to have resources given to you to push forward human intellect without having to answer to short term profits. The most useful math today had limited applications when it was invented. Society doesn't highly value these highly valuable contributions, so there is a scarcity in research resources while having the most alluring work. The result? Highly talented people living in apartments with no prospect of affording a family. In support of my point: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/figure/18 https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/figure/18 Academia spends 13% of society's overall basic research money yet produces 48% of the overall performance. I don't think tripling public research funding should triple public research output. I think it would give some breathing room for the fantastical "meritocracy" belief to be closer to reality in one sector of society. Also, academia needs to cut the g&a chuff.

namelessoracle 5y ago

The real actual answer might be around the idea of Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right when it comes to Left and Right cultural elites. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/137/1/1/6383014 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/137/1/1/6383014 Basically going into industry would be removing themselves from the Brahmin caste and trying to go into the Merchant caste and that just wont do.

hellisothers 5y ago
I haven’t heard that way of saying it but this is exactly what I was going to say only better :)