5 ms·

Tenured faculty at university still exist to provide an aspiration to academic labor that they too can receive tenure. They're more like jackpot winners. Casino

by jwie 3y ago

Tenured faculty at university still exist to provide an aspiration to academic labor that they too can receive tenure. They're more like jackpot winners. Casinos need to produce some winners, but only because nobody would play otherwise. The casino, however, is more fair. At least in the casino the winners don't have to submit their bets for approval to a committee of former winners who don't understand that they are a product of chance and had published many books and papers on gambling strategies. Awarding tenure at random might even produce better outcomes.

earthboundkid 3y ago
I was speaking to some PhD students this summer, and the thought that popped in my head was “grad school is child abuse.” It preys on your self-conception as a bright person, a good student, etc. and takes your twenties away with nothing to show for it. It’s abusive to take in more grad students than you place in jobs the year before.
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  Forgive me if I'm reading too much into your quoted statement, but I really wish we lived in a culture where adults in their twenties weren't actually children.
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    Blame the culture, or blame the "adults"?
    - slowmovintarget 3y ago
      The adults are the ones making the culture. But by the time you're a twenty-something, you're the one making choices for your own behavior, regardless of who failed you or not. I dearly wish our system helped make that clear to the 19 year olds emerging into higher education. I suspect that the 19 year-olds joining the workforce instead have it tougher and are already a long way toward understanding that. I will certainly take a portion of that responsibility. I am doing what I can with my own child. Work hard, teach strategies for self-control, strategies for understanding and dealing with adversity... But the hardest work of all as a parent is being the kind of person you want your child to be. They're going to emulate the behavior of the adults around them no matter what you say. The single greatest thing you can do to mold your child into a good person, is to show them you mean it by adopting those behaviors. The same goes for being a career manager, or faculty in school, I suppose.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - earthboundkid 3y ago
    The people I was talking to thought there were adults. They are wrong.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Meh, I think you have to look at it for what it is. I got a PhD and I found it a very useful experience. But, the key is to go into it with the purpose of developing expertise in something you are interested in. Now, if you're getting a PhD for any other reason, then forget it. If you're getting a PhD in one of those make-believe fields like social constructivism, forget it. If you're doing it to get a job, forget it. Yes, part of the problem is false advertising, but part of the problem is people going into it just for something to do.
  - Beldin 3y ago
    > If you're doing it to get a job, forget it. This is very country-dependent. In some countries, there is a glass ceiling in commercial, government, and even politician jobs for those without PhDs. I was surprised to find folks pursuing a PhD simply as a career move, but apparently* it exists. * The folk I met sure were convinced and were motivated enough to obtain the PhD to get access to better non-academic careers.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      I concede that -- and there are some jobs specifically for PhDs. However, I was actually more saying that the reason why I DON'T recommend it for most people is that a PhD could be very frustrating if the only reason why you're getting it is to get a job. OF COURSE, if the job you get is one you truly like afterwards, then it's not so bad. But then, in the case that you mention, there should be a clear path towards that, and not some vague notions that it MIGHT get you a job.
  - earthboundkid 3y ago
    This is crazy. Spend 2 years getting an MA just because you love the subject? Sure. Fine. NBD. But spending at least 6 years, maybe a decade, with no job at the end? That’s abuse of smart people in the same way that it’s abuse to run a casino and take money from gambling addicts. Nothing’s wrong with playing some roulette for fun (an MA), but if the house lets you give away your car keys, the house is abusive.
- derefr 3y ago
  Undergraduate programs — esp. ivy-league ones — are valued because they enculturate people to the particular (almost always upper-class) culture of the school, which is carefully curated by maintaining a certain mix of pre-enculturated students (= "legacy" students) and a certain student body size. Someone who went to Harvard, acts like "someone who went to Harvard." Even if they grew up in Kolkatta. For the longest time, "a highly-competitive hiring process requiring a University education" (as still exists in e.g. finance) really just meant "we want upper-class or upper-class-enculturated people; the more upper-class the school, and the more steeped in the culture of the school the person, the better." That's also why (most) state colleges, (most) trade schools, etc. were considered close to valueless as degrees for decades, despite accreditation: they weren't going to enculturate you to the upper class, because everyone who went there was middle-class. It's why "living on campus" is considered more prestigious than commuting to school: more exposure, more enculturation. It's why fraternity membership is prestigious, regardless of what fraternity: it's even more enculturation. Etc. Graduate programs are valued for similar reasons, but where the culture being enculturated toward, is the culture of academia itself (a culture valued mostly only by academia itself — though also by a few parts of industry that do research and want to attract academics.) Academic culture has an even more rarified upper-class nature than regular university culture. This is why the economics of academia is the way it is — it's a set of (dis)incentives that work out fine for the independently-wealthy trust-fund hyphenated-last-name crowd, but are prohibitive for everyone else. Academic tenure was and is not supposed to be about getting a steady pay-cheque. For the type of people who academia expects to become professors, the pay of a professorship, tenured or not, is valueless. Rather, academic tenure exists to guarantee that you'll always have access to the resources of the institution to use in your ongoing research — no matter how heterodox that research is vs. the views of the institution. Tenure is a staple through your card on the org-chart that can't easily be removed when leadership (of the University, or of the cultural zeitgeist) shifts. If you look at the academic "ladder" through the lenses of 1. an assumption of already being independently wealthy and extremely upper-class; and 2. the end-goal being "you can do whatever research you like for as long as you like, under our roof, using our staff, and we'll get it funded for you, no takesie-backsies"; then I think it's all structured in a way that's pretty optimal to achieve adequate gating and filtering of applicants. Just, the applicants to this "ladder" seem to mostly mistake what it is they're vying for; and often inherently don't have the resources to qualify.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  I don’t have a lot to show for my master’s (2 years in Europe), I didn’t get into academia for a PhD, and don’t intend to in the foreseeable future. On paper, my experience was practically nil before I joined AWS. However, I found myself doing one half of the technical leadership of a major project at my org as a “new grad”. I am leading the science and deeply technical aspect and seniors do the operational aspect. The reason I could do what I have is because of stuff I learned in gradschool. The last 4 years of my life (2 undergrad, 2 msc) put me in a very unique position. In the process, I earned plenty of “trust”, especially of senior engineers and skip+ managers. I wouldn’t recommend a master’s tbh.
PartiallyTyped 3y ago
> Awarding tenure at random might even produce better outcomes. Sortition was practiced in Ancient Athens [1]. Perhaps in cases where the stakes are not particularly high, it could be a great thing. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
jltsiren 3y ago
The hard part is getting hired to a tenure-track position. While there are exceptions, most universities award tenure to a majority of people who become eligible.
poidos 3y ago
I spent some time doing a (never completed) PhD in chemistry before I got into CS. One thing that stuck with me was a comment my PI made frequently -- he always said that there were fewer tenured chemistry professors in the US than there were professional baseball players. I never followed up on it; it might not be true![0] But it does back up your "jackpot winners" comment, which I think is true even if his particular stat is wrong. It's really formed my perspective of academia, given that it came from someone with both tenure and decades in academia. [0]: a quick search didn't yield any hard numbers. Maybe someone with better research skills could find 'em.
- maximilianburke 3y ago
  There are about 6000 professional baseball players in the US, in both major and minor leagues, and while I can’t find how many tenured chemistry professors there are, his assertion seems within the realm of reason.

by jwie 3y ago

earthboundkid 3y ago

I was speaking to some PhD students this summer, and the thought that popped in my head was “grad school is child abuse.” It preys on your self-conception as a bright person, a good student, etc. and takes your twenties away with nothing to show for it. It’s abusive to take in more grad students than you place in jobs the year before.

slowmovintarget 3y ago
Forgive me if I'm reading too much into your quoted statement, but I really wish we lived in a culture where adults in their twenties weren't actually children.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  Blame the culture, or blame the "adults"?
  - slowmovintarget 3y ago
    The adults are the ones making the culture. But by the time you're a twenty-something, you're the one making choices for your own behavior, regardless of who failed you or not. I dearly wish our system helped make that clear to the 19 year olds emerging into higher education. I suspect that the 19 year-olds joining the workforce instead have it tougher and are already a long way toward understanding that. I will certainly take a portion of that responsibility. I am doing what I can with my own child. Work hard, teach strategies for self-control, strategies for understanding and dealing with adversity... But the hardest work of all as a parent is being the kind of person you want your child to be. They're going to emulate the behavior of the adults around them no matter what you say. The single greatest thing you can do to mold your child into a good person, is to show them you mean it by adopting those behaviors. The same goes for being a career manager, or faculty in school, I suppose.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- earthboundkid 3y ago
  The people I was talking to thought there were adults. They are wrong.
vouaobrasil 3y ago
Meh, I think you have to look at it for what it is. I got a PhD and I found it a very useful experience. But, the key is to go into it with the purpose of developing expertise in something you are interested in. Now, if you're getting a PhD for any other reason, then forget it. If you're getting a PhD in one of those make-believe fields like social constructivism, forget it. If you're doing it to get a job, forget it. Yes, part of the problem is false advertising, but part of the problem is people going into it just for something to do.
- Beldin 3y ago
  > If you're doing it to get a job, forget it. This is very country-dependent. In some countries, there is a glass ceiling in commercial, government, and even politician jobs for those without PhDs. I was surprised to find folks pursuing a PhD simply as a career move, but apparently* it exists. * The folk I met sure were convinced and were motivated enough to obtain the PhD to get access to better non-academic careers.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    I concede that -- and there are some jobs specifically for PhDs. However, I was actually more saying that the reason why I DON'T recommend it for most people is that a PhD could be very frustrating if the only reason why you're getting it is to get a job. OF COURSE, if the job you get is one you truly like afterwards, then it's not so bad. But then, in the case that you mention, there should be a clear path towards that, and not some vague notions that it MIGHT get you a job.
- earthboundkid 3y ago
  This is crazy. Spend 2 years getting an MA just because you love the subject? Sure. Fine. NBD. But spending at least 6 years, maybe a decade, with no job at the end? That’s abuse of smart people in the same way that it’s abuse to run a casino and take money from gambling addicts. Nothing’s wrong with playing some roulette for fun (an MA), but if the house lets you give away your car keys, the house is abusive.
derefr 3y ago
Undergraduate programs — esp. ivy-league ones — are valued because they enculturate people to the particular (almost always upper-class) culture of the school, which is carefully curated by maintaining a certain mix of pre-enculturated students (= "legacy" students) and a certain student body size. Someone who went to Harvard, acts like "someone who went to Harvard." Even if they grew up in Kolkatta. For the longest time, "a highly-competitive hiring process requiring a University education" (as still exists in e.g. finance) really just meant "we want upper-class or upper-class-enculturated people; the more upper-class the school, and the more steeped in the culture of the school the person, the better." That's also why (most) state colleges, (most) trade schools, etc. were considered close to valueless as degrees for decades, despite accreditation: they weren't going to enculturate you to the upper class, because everyone who went there was middle-class. It's why "living on campus" is considered more prestigious than commuting to school: more exposure, more enculturation. It's why fraternity membership is prestigious, regardless of what fraternity: it's even more enculturation. Etc. Graduate programs are valued for similar reasons, but where the culture being enculturated toward, is the culture of academia itself (a culture valued mostly only by academia itself — though also by a few parts of industry that do research and want to attract academics.) Academic culture has an even more rarified upper-class nature than regular university culture. This is why the economics of academia is the way it is — it's a set of (dis)incentives that work out fine for the independently-wealthy trust-fund hyphenated-last-name crowd, but are prohibitive for everyone else. Academic tenure was and is not supposed to be about getting a steady pay-cheque. For the type of people who academia expects to become professors, the pay of a professorship, tenured or not, is valueless. Rather, academic tenure exists to guarantee that you'll always have access to the resources of the institution to use in your ongoing research — no matter how heterodox that research is vs. the views of the institution. Tenure is a staple through your card on the org-chart that can't easily be removed when leadership (of the University, or of the cultural zeitgeist) shifts. If you look at the academic "ladder" through the lenses of 1. an assumption of already being independently wealthy and extremely upper-class; and 2. the end-goal being "you can do whatever research you like for as long as you like, under our roof, using our staff, and we'll get it funded for you, no takesie-backsies"; then I think it's all structured in a way that's pretty optimal to achieve adequate gating and filtering of applicants. Just, the applicants to this "ladder" seem to mostly mistake what it is they're vying for; and often inherently don't have the resources to qualify.
PartiallyTyped 3y ago
I don’t have a lot to show for my master’s (2 years in Europe), I didn’t get into academia for a PhD, and don’t intend to in the foreseeable future. On paper, my experience was practically nil before I joined AWS. However, I found myself doing one half of the technical leadership of a major project at my org as a “new grad”. I am leading the science and deeply technical aspect and seniors do the operational aspect. The reason I could do what I have is because of stuff I learned in gradschool. The last 4 years of my life (2 undergrad, 2 msc) put me in a very unique position. In the process, I earned plenty of “trust”, especially of senior engineers and skip+ managers. I wouldn’t recommend a master’s tbh.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago

> Awarding tenure at random might even produce better outcomes. Sortition was practiced in Ancient Athens [1]. Perhaps in cases where the stakes are not particularly high, it could be a great thing. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

jltsiren 3y ago

The hard part is getting hired to a tenure-track position. While there are exceptions, most universities award tenure to a majority of people who become eligible.

poidos 3y ago

I spent some time doing a (never completed) PhD in chemistry before I got into CS. One thing that stuck with me was a comment my PI made frequently -- he always said that there were fewer tenured chemistry professors in the US than there were professional baseball players. I never followed up on it; it might not be true![0] But it does back up your "jackpot winners" comment, which I think is true even if his particular stat is wrong. It's really formed my perspective of academia, given that it came from someone with both tenure and decades in academia. [0]: a quick search didn't yield any hard numbers. Maybe someone with better research skills could find 'em.

maximilianburke 3y ago
There are about 6000 professional baseball players in the US, in both major and minor leagues, and while I can’t find how many tenured chemistry professors there are, his assertion seems within the realm of reason.