I think the problem is there is academia the calling, and academia the profession. Academia the calling is the pursuit of knowledge, truth, the advancement of

I think the problem is there is academia the calling, and academia the profession. Academia the calling is the pursuit of knowledge, truth, the advancement of humankind. It sometimes needs flexibility, other times rigor. Sometimes a full team of aligned individuals. Sometimes the singular concentration of one person over a long period of time. Results are not guaranteed, and even when they happen they may be revolutionary, or they may be a tiny stepping stone that only reveals it's greater purpose literally CENTURIES later. (Joseph Fourier died in 1830, never realizing that 2 centuries from his all modern life would not be possible without mathematical concepts named after him) All of this is great, but...how does one survive to be able to do this? Historically, virtually every famous scientist you can think of was a noble. They had family money, servants. They didn't have to think about rent or laundry or cooking or parenting. If instead we want to be able to guide humans with the ABILITY to do great things towards such pursuits, how do we compensate them? How do we track progress, and create reward structures to incentivize both achievement and progress? Therein lies academia the profession. I am not in it, nor have I ever been it. I have nothing to gain from defending it. Every ex-academic in industry I come across is so relieved to be out of it. But that is so sad and disappointing to me, and it pains me how often it's trashed on hackernews...