4 ms·
I generally disagree with the premise that scientists are becoming less productive. This one's tricky to measure. If you go by the number of words published, t
by psi75 4y ago
I generally disagree with the premise that scientists are becoming less productive.
This one's tricky to measure. If you go by the number of words published, they're a lot more productive than they used to be. Ten papers won't even get you tenure. In terms of metrics, the game is a lot more competitive.
I would argue that the bigger problem is that academic science is now consumptive. Think of all those tuitions dollars the universities get because they run a protection racket over (what's left of) the middle class job market. Now consider how terrible the academic job market has been for the past 30 years, and that professors who want even a chance of getting respect basically need to self-fund by getting grants. Lots of money is going in, and how much is coming out? Something, for sure, but is it worth it? Or is it like U.S. healthcare, where we're paying 4x for a not terrible but merely acceptable product?
I was the most creatively productive when I had a longer planning horizon in front of me.
Right, and this kind of opportunity has gone extinct, due to the hypercompetitive culture you get as our society disinvests itself in research and as funding becomes harder to find and more winner-take-all. If the neoliberals have their way, being a professor will just be another next-quarter focused corporate job within ten years.
- wumpus 4y ago> If the neoliberals have their way, Not sure where that came from. The NSF provides a lot of 3 or 5 year grants. The science org I work for is mostly funded by 3-5 year grants.