3 ms·

I got my phd in the humanities and from the outside the sciences have always looked like a pyramid scheme. I'm sure it isn't but it is hard to imagine actually

I got my phd in the humanities and from the outside the sciences have always looked like a pyramid scheme. I'm sure it isn't but it is hard to imagine actually collaborating with so many people on so many papers.

ZhangSWEFAANG 4y ago
[flagged]
beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
There is a big difference between articles in humanities that are published and those published from labs. Humanities papers are way less templated and usually aren't co-authored in the same way as lab papers are. Humanities papers also often lead the reader through the research and argument, while lab papers often simply state findings or report results. Humanities publishing has its own....idiosyncrasies though, like how certain journals become private fiefdoms for certain intellectual movements or approaches that never subject themselves to real scrutiny. The same citing hijinks also happen. It's a very "I'll pat you on the back if you'll pat mine" system. There are also different expectations of style, for lack of a better word for it. Humanities papers are often held to certain aesthetic standards that are different than lab papers.
FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
A now-flagged sibling post objected to the description of academia as a pyramid scheme and asked how that description could be justified. If we're splitting hairs, it's closer to an MLM than it is to a Ponzi. Each professor has to run a lab, which requires several students. Those students are nominally being trained to become professors who will run their own labs, and so on. What this ignores (like MLMs) is that market saturation will ensue, and the "infinite chain" nature of recruitment cannot be continued once that point is hit. At equilibrium, each professor can have only one student over the course of their career. Or, allowing for losses to other fields, only a very few students. Certainly not enough to continue the prolific paper-mill output we see today. The system only continues to work today (and only in engineering and some sciences) because there is a large enough market for PhDs outside academia. In the humanities and arguably in physics, the system already does not work. To be as offensive as possible, it's as though a primitive people continued breeding beyond the carrying capacity of the land. Malthus says mortality will start going up. What we actually see, non-metaphorically, is serious distress from humanities PhDs who languish in poverty-level adjunct roles.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  "At equilibrium, each professor can have only one student over the course of their career. Or, allowing for losses to other fields, only a very few students. Certainly not enough to continue the prolific paper-mill output we see today." This problem is solved in part by most professors only working at undergraduate or Master's awarding institutions. If you limit Ph.D.s to R1s, then you can have big labs with many grad students at equilibrium. It's solved in another part by having both master's and doctoral students (allowing two* students per career at equilibrium), and by having post-docs (not a student, technically, but still a paper-miller). With a doctor typically now having two or three post-docs during a career this allows for an additional two or three paper-millers per career at equilibrium. And the post-docs are much better at producing papers than the students. It's solved in third part by exporting Ph.D.s. It's solved in a fourth part by the less frequent people who have multiple doctorates. And in a fifth part by incorporating the many more undergraduates in the research and paper producing apparatus. Is this unsustainable? Yes. And more importantly a bunch of it shouldn't be done. We should be publishing results updates in lieu of full papers, until enough results have accumulated for a good paper. But what have you. Edit to add a sixth part: Collaborating with a fellow professor who does have a grad student. * - actually more than two, as there are typically more master's recipients than doctoral recipients.

ZhangSWEFAANG 4y ago

[flagged]

beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago

There is a big difference between articles in humanities that are published and those published from labs. Humanities papers are way less templated and usually aren't co-authored in the same way as lab papers are. Humanities papers also often lead the reader through the research and argument, while lab papers often simply state findings or report results. Humanities publishing has its own....idiosyncrasies though, like how certain journals become private fiefdoms for certain intellectual movements or approaches that never subject themselves to real scrutiny. The same citing hijinks also happen. It's a very "I'll pat you on the back if you'll pat mine" system. There are also different expectations of style, for lack of a better word for it. Humanities papers are often held to certain aesthetic standards that are different than lab papers.

FooBarBizBazz 4y ago

A now-flagged sibling post objected to the description of academia as a pyramid scheme and asked how that description could be justified. If we're splitting hairs, it's closer to an MLM than it is to a Ponzi. Each professor has to run a lab, which requires several students. Those students are nominally being trained to become professors who will run their own labs, and so on. What this ignores (like MLMs) is that market saturation will ensue, and the "infinite chain" nature of recruitment cannot be continued once that point is hit. At equilibrium, each professor can have only one student over the course of their career. Or, allowing for losses to other fields, only a very few students. Certainly not enough to continue the prolific paper-mill output we see today. The system only continues to work today (and only in engineering and some sciences) because there is a large enough market for PhDs outside academia. In the humanities and arguably in physics, the system already does not work. To be as offensive as possible, it's as though a primitive people continued breeding beyond the carrying capacity of the land. Malthus says mortality will start going up. What we actually see, non-metaphorically, is serious distress from humanities PhDs who languish in poverty-level adjunct roles.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
"At equilibrium, each professor can have only one student over the course of their career. Or, allowing for losses to other fields, only a very few students. Certainly not enough to continue the prolific paper-mill output we see today." This problem is solved in part by most professors only working at undergraduate or Master's awarding institutions. If you limit Ph.D.s to R1s, then you can have big labs with many grad students at equilibrium. It's solved in another part by having both master's and doctoral students (allowing two* students per career at equilibrium), and by having post-docs (not a student, technically, but still a paper-miller). With a doctor typically now having two or three post-docs during a career this allows for an additional two or three paper-millers per career at equilibrium. And the post-docs are much better at producing papers than the students. It's solved in third part by exporting Ph.D.s. It's solved in a fourth part by the less frequent people who have multiple doctorates. And in a fifth part by incorporating the many more undergraduates in the research and paper producing apparatus. Is this unsustainable? Yes. And more importantly a bunch of it shouldn't be done. We should be publishing results updates in lieu of full papers, until enough results have accumulated for a good paper. But what have you. Edit to add a sixth part: Collaborating with a fellow professor who does have a grad student. * - actually more than two, as there are typically more master's recipients than doctoral recipients.