2 ms·

Exactly, they’re trying to leverage mob outrage and not actually seeking a reasonable accommodation that allows all sides to come out with a win.

by nr2x 4y ago

riedel 4y ago
I myself work at a university (had the pleasure to be in the working group that drafted our first code of conduct) and I can very much relate to this: that is both sides. IMHO CS professors, however, tend to become drama queens when it comes to any progressive political thinking. And they might have reason for this reflex. An important aspect of this is that keeping things as they are in the scientific community is also very political. And what claims to be apolitical in the letter and purely research guided is often radical conservatism. I think one has to understand that the academic system at its current state still relies a very biased narrative of excellence that has promoted a certain type of academic. The reaction demonstrates IMHO that there might a bit of good reasoning behind the mission statement (which I still don't really like because it seems to not reflect other important values in science)
- nr2x 4y ago
  Part of the reason I left a faculty position at one of the tippity-top CS programs was my research was having trouble getting published and funded because I was basically invalidating 20 years of a certain type of approach. I went to industry and I’m loving it. For all its faults, SV is way more oriented towards new ways of thinking that the academy is. Why would you allow a paper to be published that put your giant NSF grant at risk? Why would you focus on making efficient and scalable systems that require less grants to fund? Saving money is literally career poison when the university feeds on big bloated budgets. In industry I can make a case I can save $10M with a new technique and I get a shot at proving it. Try writing a grant that says you can do the same type of research with 1/10th of the funds!

Exactly, they’re trying to leverage mob outrage and not actually seeking a reasonable accommodation that allows all sides to come out with a win.

by nr2x 4y ago

Exactly, they’re trying to leverage mob outrage and not actually seeking a reasonable accommodation that allows all sides to come out with a win.

riedel 4y ago

I myself work at a university (had the pleasure to be in the working group that drafted our first code of conduct) and I can very much relate to this: that is both sides. IMHO CS professors, however, tend to become drama queens when it comes to any progressive political thinking. And they might have reason for this reflex. An important aspect of this is that keeping things as they are in the scientific community is also very political. And what claims to be apolitical in the letter and purely research guided is often radical conservatism. I think one has to understand that the academic system at its current state still relies a very biased narrative of excellence that has promoted a certain type of academic. The reaction demonstrates IMHO that there might a bit of good reasoning behind the mission statement (which I still don't really like because it seems to not reflect other important values in science)

nr2x 4y ago
Part of the reason I left a faculty position at one of the tippity-top CS programs was my research was having trouble getting published and funded because I was basically invalidating 20 years of a certain type of approach. I went to industry and I’m loving it. For all its faults, SV is way more oriented towards new ways of thinking that the academy is. Why would you allow a paper to be published that put your giant NSF grant at risk? Why would you focus on making efficient and scalable systems that require less grants to fund? Saving money is literally career poison when the university feeds on big bloated budgets. In industry I can make a case I can save $10M with a new technique and I get a shot at proving it. Try writing a grant that says you can do the same type of research with 1/10th of the funds!