5 ms·

Seems a bit dramatic

KSteffensen 2y ago
I don't know anything about the author and their situation, but in my experience the first time you realize that your life is not going to be as you expected in major ways can be quite hard. I don't think mourning is an inappropriate word to use for this.
bowsamic 2y ago
Leaving academia is like this. It's very sticky and scary to leave. I remember how devastating it was for me. I think it's because there's a very strong sense of a missed dream, and that you can never return.
- 0xEF 2y ago
  I feel the need to point out that it's not difficult for people whose identity is not centered around their jobs, since I see that disconnect in the comments. I found the author's take full of the pageantry that I often associate with people who make big deals out of fairly inconsequential things, but before I begrudge the author their take, I have to remember that my career is of relatively little importance to me. Hypothetically, when you meet someone new, do you introduce yourself as your job? Is one of the first exchanges of self-identifying information what you do for a living? A lot of people do and while I do not understand it, I guess that is what their lives are. Tbh, I find it a bit sad. Generally, my career does not enter the conversation unless there is some relevant reason. I'd rather talk about my productive hobbies where I am making or building or learning a thing. Breaking this down, when we use our jobs as our identity, I find it exceptionally difficult to pull the "why do you do it" out of that conversation, because a career is just a paycheck, in the end and involves very little personal enrichment. Of course, not everyone views careers that way and I'm not here to try to change minds, but shed light on why it might seem silly to many of us. Perhaps we are not one of the lucky few with those unicorn jobs that both pay the bills, offer a bright future, and promote personal growth. They exist, I am sure, but they are the exception to the rule.
  - foldr 2y ago
    You can't really be an academic whose identity is not centered around their job. This is because it virtually never makes sense to pursue an academic career as a means to other ends (given that pay and conditions tend to be quite bad).
  - bowsamic 2y ago
    I agree for most jobs, but academia is different. It's so wildly different to other careers, that it does feel more like a calling, and is far easier to identify with. Especially if you are a first generation academic, you are doing something considered wildly more prestigious than anything anyone before you has done. That is, I think it's relatively easy to dismiss your career as not that important if you have a normal job. But I think it's inherently much harder if you are an academic for many reasons.
  - tpoacher 2y ago
    I think academia is one of those special places where a lot of people who enter it are altruistic and idealistic, and consider it a part of their identity to make a change in the world in a larger sense. You are literally taking a pay-cut, willingly, in order to make the world a better place. At least in theory. So, in that sense, academia is (or at least used to be) more akin to monasteries than corporations. Not that other jobs aren't making a change in the world, but you know what I mean. It's one thing to be a knowingly replaceable cog in a team that tries to offer more effective ads, and it's quite another to singularly, completely in isolation, try to devote your life trying to invent the MRI, where if you fail the MRI may never come to exist. So yes, a lot of people in academia traditionally do ascribe a big part of their identity to their jobs, but I think this goes beyond the superficial sense you describe (i.e. I'm so boring and soulless that my work defines me). Which is also why it's such a big deal when some academics are found to be 'cheating' the system (again, see monasteries). Traditionally, the whole edifice has been based on 'honor', but the tide seems to be changing; the rampant corporatisation of academia has been a very recent phenomenon, and now that the inevitable shills and snake-oil merchants have entered the game, we don't quite know how to handle them.
    - xtracto 2y ago
- greener_grass 2y ago
  Out of curiosity, why can't you return?
  - zer0tonin 2y ago
    Cults sometimes don't allow returnees.
  - noelwelsh 2y ago
    Academia tends to have fairly linear career paths. You do a doctorate, then maybe do a post-doc, then become a lecturer / assistant professor, etc. If you don't follow the path you end up without the track record (publications, funding, etc.) you need for promotion and will be passed over for other candidates who look more likely to succeed. There are many more applicants than positions in most fields. If you're not on this career path, there is basically no alternative in most institutions. You can be an adjunct, or lab assistant, or other low-level employee forever but this will lead nowhere. This is particularly a problem in the US, where the tenure track system gives you seven years of grind to achieve tenure, and if you fail your academic career is basically over. (Things are changing. Some institutions have, for example, teaching track positions.)
  - bowsamic 2y ago
    Well, for one, people usually leave for systematic issues with academia that won't just magically be fixed over time. Second, it's very difficult to get back in anyway, you will have a publication gap and with the extreme increase in publish and perish it's hard to imagine it being a good choice. Here in Germany, getting any permanent academic position is a pipe dream even for the extremely motivated. This ties back into the first point.
  - tpoacher 2y ago
    Not OP, but in general to be hirable in academia you need to demonstrate a constant flow of papers and grant proposals. Being 'out of the game' for a couple of years means you have not published or applied to grants within that time. At best, you might be looking at restarting at the bottom of the ladder until you've reasonably caught up in numbers to climb back up again. And it's not even just a case of "computer says no" because of automated metrics. In the UK at least, government initiatives like the REF mean that the university will actively avoid hiring you because by definition you would be costing the university money. (and conversely, you have an advantage for being hired if you demonstrate the right REFfable metrics, even if you weren't the most suitable candidate at the interview, because this automatically brings a university money that is directly linked to your recent REF outputs). I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but I'm fairly sure similar exercises exist with effectively the same effect.
- KineticLensman 2y ago
  Another anecdata point... For me leaving academia was a big challenge - I'd have to find a job, pass interviews, move home, etc, etc. Scary stuff! But as soon as I had actually done this, my new career path in industry went smoothly, and my first year in industry massively improved my personal confidence. As an academic I was surrounded by other academics, but in industry I was forced to interact and communicate with a more diverse group of people, and I quickly found that it wasn't as scary as I had thought. E.g. doing product demos to senior people, supporting our marketing people by building prototypes, etc. Amazingly, the company I moved to had much better tooling for the type of software research research I was recruited for than I had had access to at Uni. I built something (as part of a supportive team that understood software dev) in about six months, that I had struggled (and failed) to build in academia over a couple of years.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    At some level in industry you have at least the potential to have the paradox of choice. Of course, some people are perfectly happy and successful with roles that are essentially the same in the fundamentals from one company to the next. But others largely reinvent themselves with each new role both between different companies and even within the same one. That really isn't an option in academia.
- xtracto 2y ago
  For me it was more of a 'good riddance' moment haha . But I ded finish my PhD and a postdoc, so I didn't leave with a feeling of 'I have failed ' I remember though, that feeling when I was doing my PhD and I got the quits fever. I think a lot of people struggle mentally when they quit in the middle mainly because of a sense of defeat. To them I would say scree it. If you found out the stupid churn of the academia process is not for you, leave without remorse. It's like game programming. It's fantasized during childhood, but once you get in and see the swamp it is, you realize it's either for you or it isn't no shame at all in leaving.
  - bowsamic 2y ago
    I did a PhD and postdoc too. My issue was how drawn out it was. I had a 3 year postdoc contract with great pay, so it seemed like a really bad idea to quit. Basically I spent 3 years wanting to quit but knowing I couldn't because it made no economic sense. Our group leader didn't care at all. He was totally fine with me sitting around earning money while doing everything. I think I would have done far better if I were simply fired.
    - xtracto 2y ago
      Golden handcuffs. I've had them in previous industry jobs as well. I understand how frustrating it is.
swores 2y ago
They aren't claiming their career decision is a monumental thing for anyone but themselves, but a complete change of career is a monumental moment for the person whose career it is. If you're suggesting that having a dinner party with friends to mourn/celebrate the change, and writing a blog post about it, is overly "dramatic" then I completely disagree. If, on the other hand, you just mean that some of the minor specifics such as the invite including "Dressing in your personal version of mourning wear, the more over-the-top the better, is highly encouraged but not required." then I think you're just not in sync with her(his?) sense of humour.
- the_real_cher 2y ago
  [flagged]
DeborahWrites 2y ago
The process in my mid-20s of realising I was not going to have the career I'd expected since my mid-teens was pretty rough. I eventually dusted myself off and pivoted, but it might have been healthy to mourn (although I can't imagine myself summoning my friends to a gathering for that purpose - but good for her, sounds like she had a sense of humour about it)

I don't know anything about the author and their situation, but in my experience the first time you realize that your life is not going to be as you expected in major ways can be quite hard. I don't think mourning is an inappropriate word to use for this.

bowsamic 2y ago

Leaving academia is like this. It's very sticky and scary to leave. I remember how devastating it was for me. I think it's because there's a very strong sense of a missed dream, and that you can never return.

0xEF 2y ago
I feel the need to point out that it's not difficult for people whose identity is not centered around their jobs, since I see that disconnect in the comments. I found the author's take full of the pageantry that I often associate with people who make big deals out of fairly inconsequential things, but before I begrudge the author their take, I have to remember that my career is of relatively little importance to me. Hypothetically, when you meet someone new, do you introduce yourself as your job? Is one of the first exchanges of self-identifying information what you do for a living? A lot of people do and while I do not understand it, I guess that is what their lives are. Tbh, I find it a bit sad. Generally, my career does not enter the conversation unless there is some relevant reason. I'd rather talk about my productive hobbies where I am making or building or learning a thing. Breaking this down, when we use our jobs as our identity, I find it exceptionally difficult to pull the "why do you do it" out of that conversation, because a career is just a paycheck, in the end and involves very little personal enrichment. Of course, not everyone views careers that way and I'm not here to try to change minds, but shed light on why it might seem silly to many of us. Perhaps we are not one of the lucky few with those unicorn jobs that both pay the bills, offer a bright future, and promote personal growth. They exist, I am sure, but they are the exception to the rule.
- foldr 2y ago
  You can't really be an academic whose identity is not centered around their job. This is because it virtually never makes sense to pursue an academic career as a means to other ends (given that pay and conditions tend to be quite bad).
- bowsamic 2y ago
  I agree for most jobs, but academia is different. It's so wildly different to other careers, that it does feel more like a calling, and is far easier to identify with. Especially if you are a first generation academic, you are doing something considered wildly more prestigious than anything anyone before you has done. That is, I think it's relatively easy to dismiss your career as not that important if you have a normal job. But I think it's inherently much harder if you are an academic for many reasons.
- tpoacher 2y ago
  I think academia is one of those special places where a lot of people who enter it are altruistic and idealistic, and consider it a part of their identity to make a change in the world in a larger sense. You are literally taking a pay-cut, willingly, in order to make the world a better place. At least in theory. So, in that sense, academia is (or at least used to be) more akin to monasteries than corporations. Not that other jobs aren't making a change in the world, but you know what I mean. It's one thing to be a knowingly replaceable cog in a team that tries to offer more effective ads, and it's quite another to singularly, completely in isolation, try to devote your life trying to invent the MRI, where if you fail the MRI may never come to exist. So yes, a lot of people in academia traditionally do ascribe a big part of their identity to their jobs, but I think this goes beyond the superficial sense you describe (i.e. I'm so boring and soulless that my work defines me). Which is also why it's such a big deal when some academics are found to be 'cheating' the system (again, see monasteries). Traditionally, the whole edifice has been based on 'honor', but the tide seems to be changing; the rampant corporatisation of academia has been a very recent phenomenon, and now that the inevitable shills and snake-oil merchants have entered the game, we don't quite know how to handle them.
  - xtracto 2y ago
greener_grass 2y ago
Out of curiosity, why can't you return?
- zer0tonin 2y ago
  Cults sometimes don't allow returnees.
- noelwelsh 2y ago
  Academia tends to have fairly linear career paths. You do a doctorate, then maybe do a post-doc, then become a lecturer / assistant professor, etc. If you don't follow the path you end up without the track record (publications, funding, etc.) you need for promotion and will be passed over for other candidates who look more likely to succeed. There are many more applicants than positions in most fields. If you're not on this career path, there is basically no alternative in most institutions. You can be an adjunct, or lab assistant, or other low-level employee forever but this will lead nowhere. This is particularly a problem in the US, where the tenure track system gives you seven years of grind to achieve tenure, and if you fail your academic career is basically over. (Things are changing. Some institutions have, for example, teaching track positions.)
- bowsamic 2y ago
  Well, for one, people usually leave for systematic issues with academia that won't just magically be fixed over time. Second, it's very difficult to get back in anyway, you will have a publication gap and with the extreme increase in publish and perish it's hard to imagine it being a good choice. Here in Germany, getting any permanent academic position is a pipe dream even for the extremely motivated. This ties back into the first point.
- tpoacher 2y ago
  Not OP, but in general to be hirable in academia you need to demonstrate a constant flow of papers and grant proposals. Being 'out of the game' for a couple of years means you have not published or applied to grants within that time. At best, you might be looking at restarting at the bottom of the ladder until you've reasonably caught up in numbers to climb back up again. And it's not even just a case of "computer says no" because of automated metrics. In the UK at least, government initiatives like the REF mean that the university will actively avoid hiring you because by definition you would be costing the university money. (and conversely, you have an advantage for being hired if you demonstrate the right REFfable metrics, even if you weren't the most suitable candidate at the interview, because this automatically brings a university money that is directly linked to your recent REF outputs). I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but I'm fairly sure similar exercises exist with effectively the same effect.
KineticLensman 2y ago
Another anecdata point... For me leaving academia was a big challenge - I'd have to find a job, pass interviews, move home, etc, etc. Scary stuff! But as soon as I had actually done this, my new career path in industry went smoothly, and my first year in industry massively improved my personal confidence. As an academic I was surrounded by other academics, but in industry I was forced to interact and communicate with a more diverse group of people, and I quickly found that it wasn't as scary as I had thought. E.g. doing product demos to senior people, supporting our marketing people by building prototypes, etc. Amazingly, the company I moved to had much better tooling for the type of software research research I was recruited for than I had had access to at Uni. I built something (as part of a supportive team that understood software dev) in about six months, that I had struggled (and failed) to build in academia over a couple of years.
- ghaff 2y ago
  At some level in industry you have at least the potential to have the paradox of choice. Of course, some people are perfectly happy and successful with roles that are essentially the same in the fundamentals from one company to the next. But others largely reinvent themselves with each new role both between different companies and even within the same one. That really isn't an option in academia.
xtracto 2y ago
For me it was more of a 'good riddance' moment haha . But I ded finish my PhD and a postdoc, so I didn't leave with a feeling of 'I have failed ' I remember though, that feeling when I was doing my PhD and I got the quits fever. I think a lot of people struggle mentally when they quit in the middle mainly because of a sense of defeat. To them I would say scree it. If you found out the stupid churn of the academia process is not for you, leave without remorse. It's like game programming. It's fantasized during childhood, but once you get in and see the swamp it is, you realize it's either for you or it isn't no shame at all in leaving.
- bowsamic 2y ago
  I did a PhD and postdoc too. My issue was how drawn out it was. I had a 3 year postdoc contract with great pay, so it seemed like a really bad idea to quit. Basically I spent 3 years wanting to quit but knowing I couldn't because it made no economic sense. Our group leader didn't care at all. He was totally fine with me sitting around earning money while doing everything. I think I would have done far better if I were simply fired.
  - xtracto 2y ago
    Golden handcuffs. I've had them in previous industry jobs as well. I understand how frustrating it is.

swores 2y ago

They aren't claiming their career decision is a monumental thing for anyone but themselves, but a complete change of career is a monumental moment for the person whose career it is. If you're suggesting that having a dinner party with friends to mourn/celebrate the change, and writing a blog post about it, is overly "dramatic" then I completely disagree. If, on the other hand, you just mean that some of the minor specifics such as the invite including "Dressing in your personal version of mourning wear, the more over-the-top the better, is highly encouraged but not required." then I think you're just not in sync with her(his?) sense of humour.

the_real_cher 2y ago
[flagged]

DeborahWrites 2y ago

The process in my mid-20s of realising I was not going to have the career I'd expected since my mid-teens was pretty rough. I eventually dusted myself off and pivoted, but it might have been healthy to mourn (although I can't imagine myself summoning my friends to a gathering for that purpose - but good for her, sounds like she had a sense of humour about it)