4 ms·

This completely ignores the elephant in the room that the supply way outstrips demand, and therefore the selection process naturally starts to incorporate many

This completely ignores the elephant in the room that the supply way outstrips demand, and therefore the selection process naturally starts to incorporate many features additional to simply merit. If there are sufficient candidates in the well-off rubric why should we as a society artificially push anyone else into the arena? At least the well-off folks won't have their lives ruined if they fail to get tenure.

slg 4y ago
Seems rather dystopian to argue that it is good for society that poor people don't get opportunities because they can't weather failure as well as rich people.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  I assume you're referring to this line: > At least the well-off folks won't have their lives ruined if they fail to get tenure. Which I read as pointing to the fact that poor people will have to invest almost all or actually all of their savings and income into their education. Someone with more fortunate circumstances might be able to use half of their savings or let their parents pay for it.
  - slg 4y ago
    I wasn't arguing against the notion that rich people can weather failure better. That is objectively true. I was arguing against the notion that this is an acceptable outcome for society which was implied by the question asked in the prior sentence: >why should we as a society artificially push anyone else into the arena? We don't even need to get into the practical reasons that other comments mentioned. This is an inherently unjust way for society to be structured. That alone is enough reason to push for change.
    - foobarian 4y ago
      > was implied by the question My intention was not necessarily to imply that, but literally ask myself the original question - why push people into this when the outcome for them will likely be poor? Perhaps a good followup is to ask is, what can we do to both get a more diverse pool of academics without punishing those without means? I would think a massive expansion of the tenure track program would be needed, which is kind of what it was created for in the first place, just got too saturated. But that has its own slew of problems.
      - slg 4y ago
        >why push people into this when the outcome for them will likely be poor? You have used the word "push" multiple times and I'm not sure what you mean by that. I would frame it as "allow" and not "push" as the motivation at an individual level comes from the individual. The goal should be to remove obstacles that prevent poor people from joining academy. That isn't the same thing as pushing poor people into academia even if the end result is effectively the same at a societal level. Either way, I simply think the answer to this question is self-evident based on the morals we claim to have as a society. We literally call it the American Dream. The station of one's birth should not eliminate a career like academia.
        foobarian 4y ago
        > the word "push" Sure, one example of what I have in mind are various efforts across the board to advertise "STEM"/"STEAM" careers, teach kids programming, promote STEM competitions, run STEM courses, etc. etc. This presumably "pushes" some fraction of people into these careers that otherwise would not have gone; but there is no corresponding increase in funding or safety nets. It's not a question of allowed or not - of course anyone is already welcome and able to join academia at least in the USA, it's just that the not well-off population probably drops off before the finish line due to financial constraints.
        slg 4y ago
        It is just semantics, but I don't consider that pushing kids into specific career paths. I tend to think of it like any other school subject. Would people say that having an English literature class in middle school is pushing kids to become writers or teaching high school kids calculus pushes them to be mathematicians? I instead view it as exposing kids to a wider breadth of topics in order to allow them to better self select what career paths interest them. It is still ultimately up to the individual kid to find the topic engaging and stick with it.
- Draiken 4y ago
  I'd argue that's exactly the world we already live in and mostly by design. Another comment mentioned that science was a hobby for the aristocracy and I agree. Because of the big wealth inequality it seems to remain so as shown by the study. Not sure how we can fix any of that within the current landscape though. It really seems to me like it's only really doable with huge systemic changes that will take many revolutions to happen.
uoaei 4y ago
I don't come across many opinions which can legitimately be labeled as 'anti-social', but this definitely qualifies.
- plutonorm 4y ago
  Welcome to the archetypal mind of the conservative. When your axiom is "the current order is just and appropriate" then unconsciously every data point aligns to that principle. The wealthy are good and deserve thier advantage. The poor are bad and they deserve their disadvantage. The outcast or morally abhorrent as they stand opposed to the just order. It's nuts, but that's how they think. They are literally Slytherin and proud of it. It's an insanely dangerous mindset and we should call them out for it. It naturally creates a wall between in group and out group. Any ideology that fosters such division should be fought against. The future, if we are to have one must foster the expansion of our empathy, not it's contraction. It's literally the fight between good and evil. For both sides and from both perspectives. There can be no reconciliation or melding of views. Yin and Yang, light and dark. The internet has laid bare this basic divide and there is a war coming in America. Maybe even a literal war.
  - RelativeDelta 4y ago
    It's not just america. It will be the foundation of the next world war. The fight is between collectivism and individualism. Collectivization requires that all sacrifice and all gain, lashed together. Individualism allows for some to sacrifice and for some to gain, devil take the hindmost. The questions facing those of us undecided on our allegiance are: Is our morality objective? Are we willing to die for a stranger? Are we willing to risk being ruled if we are uncomfortable ruling? Do we truely want the same things? Is harm minimization or gain maximization a better long-term strategy?
hourago 4y ago
> If there are sufficient candidates in the well-off rubric why should we as a society artificially push anyone else into the arena? 1. You get better prepared people. Any society based on nepotism is doomed to fail. 2. You get different views on how to solve problems. People with different background have different experiences that give a wider view of the world. 3. It is fair. Injustice is a bad way of running a society. > At least the well-off folks won't have their lives ruined if they fail to get tenure. Everybody in a society has a right to a good life. That someone does not get a tenure does not mean that their life has ended, there are many possibilities in life and governments have to provide safety nets to help people to get back on their feet.
- foobarian 4y ago
  I agree with your points. However, I think we still have the problem that there is too much supply, and pushing more people into it does them a disservice. Yes, it helps the scientific establishment re: points 1. and 2. As for 3., perhaps true, but I'm not sure it helps those individuals and thus conflicts with the next point that "Everybody in a society has a right to a good life." This may be colored with a US-centric point of view because social safety nets are not great, and if they existed to a greater extent maybe my criticism would be mitigated and it would be fine to push against the market. But without that I think many people are better off pursuing opportunities more appropriate for them.
owlglass 4y ago
> At least the well-off folks won't have their lives ruined if they fail to get tenure So the downtrodden shouldn't ever attempt anything. Also why is this a binary between tenure and financial ruin?

slg 4y ago

Seems rather dystopian to argue that it is good for society that poor people don't get opportunities because they can't weather failure as well as rich people.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
I assume you're referring to this line: > At least the well-off folks won't have their lives ruined if they fail to get tenure. Which I read as pointing to the fact that poor people will have to invest almost all or actually all of their savings and income into their education. Someone with more fortunate circumstances might be able to use half of their savings or let their parents pay for it.
- slg 4y ago
  I wasn't arguing against the notion that rich people can weather failure better. That is objectively true. I was arguing against the notion that this is an acceptable outcome for society which was implied by the question asked in the prior sentence: >why should we as a society artificially push anyone else into the arena? We don't even need to get into the practical reasons that other comments mentioned. This is an inherently unjust way for society to be structured. That alone is enough reason to push for change.
  - foobarian 4y ago
    > was implied by the question My intention was not necessarily to imply that, but literally ask myself the original question - why push people into this when the outcome for them will likely be poor? Perhaps a good followup is to ask is, what can we do to both get a more diverse pool of academics without punishing those without means? I would think a massive expansion of the tenure track program would be needed, which is kind of what it was created for in the first place, just got too saturated. But that has its own slew of problems.
    - slg 4y ago
      >why push people into this when the outcome for them will likely be poor? You have used the word "push" multiple times and I'm not sure what you mean by that. I would frame it as "allow" and not "push" as the motivation at an individual level comes from the individual. The goal should be to remove obstacles that prevent poor people from joining academy. That isn't the same thing as pushing poor people into academia even if the end result is effectively the same at a societal level. Either way, I simply think the answer to this question is self-evident based on the morals we claim to have as a society. We literally call it the American Dream. The station of one's birth should not eliminate a career like academia.
      - foobarian 4y ago
        > the word "push" Sure, one example of what I have in mind are various efforts across the board to advertise "STEM"/"STEAM" careers, teach kids programming, promote STEM competitions, run STEM courses, etc. etc. This presumably "pushes" some fraction of people into these careers that otherwise would not have gone; but there is no corresponding increase in funding or safety nets. It's not a question of allowed or not - of course anyone is already welcome and able to join academia at least in the USA, it's just that the not well-off population probably drops off before the finish line due to financial constraints.
        slg 4y ago
        It is just semantics, but I don't consider that pushing kids into specific career paths. I tend to think of it like any other school subject. Would people say that having an English literature class in middle school is pushing kids to become writers or teaching high school kids calculus pushes them to be mathematicians? I instead view it as exposing kids to a wider breadth of topics in order to allow them to better self select what career paths interest them. It is still ultimately up to the individual kid to find the topic engaging and stick with it.
Draiken 4y ago
I'd argue that's exactly the world we already live in and mostly by design. Another comment mentioned that science was a hobby for the aristocracy and I agree. Because of the big wealth inequality it seems to remain so as shown by the study. Not sure how we can fix any of that within the current landscape though. It really seems to me like it's only really doable with huge systemic changes that will take many revolutions to happen.

uoaei 4y ago

I don't come across many opinions which can legitimately be labeled as 'anti-social', but this definitely qualifies.

plutonorm 4y ago
Welcome to the archetypal mind of the conservative. When your axiom is "the current order is just and appropriate" then unconsciously every data point aligns to that principle. The wealthy are good and deserve thier advantage. The poor are bad and they deserve their disadvantage. The outcast or morally abhorrent as they stand opposed to the just order. It's nuts, but that's how they think. They are literally Slytherin and proud of it. It's an insanely dangerous mindset and we should call them out for it. It naturally creates a wall between in group and out group. Any ideology that fosters such division should be fought against. The future, if we are to have one must foster the expansion of our empathy, not it's contraction. It's literally the fight between good and evil. For both sides and from both perspectives. There can be no reconciliation or melding of views. Yin and Yang, light and dark. The internet has laid bare this basic divide and there is a war coming in America. Maybe even a literal war.
- RelativeDelta 4y ago
  It's not just america. It will be the foundation of the next world war. The fight is between collectivism and individualism. Collectivization requires that all sacrifice and all gain, lashed together. Individualism allows for some to sacrifice and for some to gain, devil take the hindmost. The questions facing those of us undecided on our allegiance are: Is our morality objective? Are we willing to die for a stranger? Are we willing to risk being ruled if we are uncomfortable ruling? Do we truely want the same things? Is harm minimization or gain maximization a better long-term strategy?

hourago 4y ago

> If there are sufficient candidates in the well-off rubric why should we as a society artificially push anyone else into the arena? 1. You get better prepared people. Any society based on nepotism is doomed to fail. 2. You get different views on how to solve problems. People with different background have different experiences that give a wider view of the world. 3. It is fair. Injustice is a bad way of running a society. > At least the well-off folks won't have their lives ruined if they fail to get tenure. Everybody in a society has a right to a good life. That someone does not get a tenure does not mean that their life has ended, there are many possibilities in life and governments have to provide safety nets to help people to get back on their feet.

foobarian 4y ago
I agree with your points. However, I think we still have the problem that there is too much supply, and pushing more people into it does them a disservice. Yes, it helps the scientific establishment re: points 1. and 2. As for 3., perhaps true, but I'm not sure it helps those individuals and thus conflicts with the next point that "Everybody in a society has a right to a good life." This may be colored with a US-centric point of view because social safety nets are not great, and if they existed to a greater extent maybe my criticism would be mitigated and it would be fine to push against the market. But without that I think many people are better off pursuing opportunities more appropriate for them.

owlglass 4y ago

> At least the well-off folks won't have their lives ruined if they fail to get tenure So the downtrodden shouldn't ever attempt anything. Also why is this a binary between tenure and financial ruin?