4 ms·
> When I started my Ph.D., I knew that if I wanted to pursue an academic career, I would likely have to move someday > In the end, I decided I needed to find a
by dehrmann 3y ago
> When I started my Ph.D., I knew that if I wanted to pursue an academic career, I would likely have to move someday
> In the end, I decided I needed to find a way to stay in Minnesota.
> The instructions clearly stated that applicants who proposed to remain in their current location had to justify their choice. I interpreted that to mean the research needed to be distinctly different from my dissertation
So the author knew how the game is played, had a plan to not have to relocate, then got cute at executing that plan, knowing what the question likely meant, but ignoring it.
- hyperhopper 3y ago1. The requirements are fucked 2. The author knew the requirements were fucked, but now is acting surprised that that's the case
- low_tech_love 3y agoKnowing how the game is played doesn’t mean agreeing with it, and anyway the game can be played in many different ways. The thing is that it shouldn’t be necessary to move if you are doing a good job and the project is good and your history is good. They should’ve been able to justify their decision based on more solid arguments, or not at all. The problem is that the competition is brutal, the bias is probably even more brutal, and any tiny argument that can help with a decision is going to be used (as long as it’s accepted by the community).