6 ms·

> If you want to maximize autonomy, great, but it’s unlikely you’ll also maximize pay And that's the literal trade off gp was referring to

bumby 4y ago
Right, and it was phrased with "unfortunately" and as a "dystopia" which I took to mean "it shouldn't be this way." I wasn't trying to refute their point that tradeoffs exist, but rather indicate that's exactly how one should expect the system to operate. (Possible I misread their intent, though.) The idea that someone would expect to 1) land a job they love while 2) making gobs of money and 3) have it generalizable across an oversaturated market like academia seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the incentive structure within the system.
- plonk 4y ago
  > The idea that someone would expect to 1) land a job they love while 2) making gobs of money and 3) have it generalizable across an oversaturated market like academia seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the incentive structure within the system. I think that’s a strawman, even if unintended. The idea is that academia means a pay cut in exchange for a job one loves and more research freedom. The worsening situation of research funding makes the academic track pointless. Again adding that I mostly mean in STEM, I don’t know the other fields that much.
  - bumby 4y ago
    What part do you think is specifically a strawman? The idea that they want to make more money in academia? My response was to the OP's "not many people seem to end up making money doing something they really care about" statement. The only part I've added to their argument is that the PhD market is oversaturated; I added that because it adds important context to the market dynamics that govern pay. I'll try to put a finer point on it. Why should the work in academia not result in a tradeoff? Why should the jobs in academia pay the same in industry when you are given other benefits? You are generally removing yourself by a degree or more from the economy to work in academia. E.g., you may develop a new algorithm that helps image recognition, but you aren't likely to be putting it directly into a production environment. As I previously said, pay is generally commensurate with your direct contribution to the economy. So if the nature of your job distances yourself from the economy, you should probably expect lower pay. Now what you get in exchange is some more autonomy in terms of what you focus your energy on. The idea that someone expects both autonomy and high pay seems at odds with reality. Practically every job results in weighing tradeoffs. People get paid in more ways than just economics. A social worker doesn't get paid the same as a financier because they are more distanced from the economy. But many people find the job still worthwhile because in exchange for lower pay they have a more fulfilling job. Military members weigh whether to continue serving in uniform or make more money as contractors. PhD astrophysicists may have to choose between making lots of money in finance or studying the cosmos. In the same vein, the academic tradeoff is only pointless if you don't value the other non-economic parts that academia offers. If you want to maximize pay, academia probably isn't the track for you; maybe you're better off working on maximizing ad spend in the attention economy. But if you want the autonomy to focus on problems that you feel are more interesting or more important, maybe it's worth the tradeoff. It's all about the tradeoffs but the OP doesn't seem to acknowledge that these tradeoffs exist because they imply one should be able to make lots of money while working on what they love. That's only available to a relatively small number of people, especially in an oversaturated market. There's only one starting center fielder position for the Yankees and it seems odd if we lament that we can't all seem to play. That's all I was pointing out and I'm not seeing how that's a strawman.

bumby 4y ago

Right, and it was phrased with "unfortunately" and as a "dystopia" which I took to mean "it shouldn't be this way." I wasn't trying to refute their point that tradeoffs exist, but rather indicate that's exactly how one should expect the system to operate. (Possible I misread their intent, though.) The idea that someone would expect to 1) land a job they love while 2) making gobs of money and 3) have it generalizable across an oversaturated market like academia seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the incentive structure within the system.

plonk 4y ago
> The idea that someone would expect to 1) land a job they love while 2) making gobs of money and 3) have it generalizable across an oversaturated market like academia seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the incentive structure within the system. I think that’s a strawman, even if unintended. The idea is that academia means a pay cut in exchange for a job one loves and more research freedom. The worsening situation of research funding makes the academic track pointless. Again adding that I mostly mean in STEM, I don’t know the other fields that much.
- bumby 4y ago
  What part do you think is specifically a strawman? The idea that they want to make more money in academia? My response was to the OP's "not many people seem to end up making money doing something they really care about" statement. The only part I've added to their argument is that the PhD market is oversaturated; I added that because it adds important context to the market dynamics that govern pay. I'll try to put a finer point on it. Why should the work in academia not result in a tradeoff? Why should the jobs in academia pay the same in industry when you are given other benefits? You are generally removing yourself by a degree or more from the economy to work in academia. E.g., you may develop a new algorithm that helps image recognition, but you aren't likely to be putting it directly into a production environment. As I previously said, pay is generally commensurate with your direct contribution to the economy. So if the nature of your job distances yourself from the economy, you should probably expect lower pay. Now what you get in exchange is some more autonomy in terms of what you focus your energy on. The idea that someone expects both autonomy and high pay seems at odds with reality. Practically every job results in weighing tradeoffs. People get paid in more ways than just economics. A social worker doesn't get paid the same as a financier because they are more distanced from the economy. But many people find the job still worthwhile because in exchange for lower pay they have a more fulfilling job. Military members weigh whether to continue serving in uniform or make more money as contractors. PhD astrophysicists may have to choose between making lots of money in finance or studying the cosmos. In the same vein, the academic tradeoff is only pointless if you don't value the other non-economic parts that academia offers. If you want to maximize pay, academia probably isn't the track for you; maybe you're better off working on maximizing ad spend in the attention economy. But if you want the autonomy to focus on problems that you feel are more interesting or more important, maybe it's worth the tradeoff. It's all about the tradeoffs but the OP doesn't seem to acknowledge that these tradeoffs exist because they imply one should be able to make lots of money while working on what they love. That's only available to a relatively small number of people, especially in an oversaturated market. There's only one starting center fielder position for the Yankees and it seems odd if we lament that we can't all seem to play. That's all I was pointing out and I'm not seeing how that's a strawman.