5 ms·

Depends on whether they actually do research in the private sector, though. Historically most fundamental science advances have come either from academia, or fr

by mjn 13y ago

Depends on whether they actually do research in the private sector, though. Historically most fundamental science advances have come either from academia, or from big academia-like research organizations in industry (Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, Microsoft Research), or from government research labs (Sandia, Livermore, CERN, etc.). Most industry R&D tends towards different kinds of problems, applied research with 1-5 years commercialization horizons, sometimes pushing 10. That's a valuable segment of research, but not all of it, and it depends on a pipeline of less-applied research to keep it fed. But due to the difficulty of monetizing indirect future advances that basic science enables, it's difficult to do it profitably in industry. A scientific discovery that at some point in the future turns out to be useful in developing technology is valuable for humanity, but you cannot easily capture that value, as it simply diffuses to the general benefit. Knowledge advances, but anyone can use it, and you don't get to own it; you can get some kind of satisfaction in old age in looking at how this physics discovery you came up with in your 30s is being used to improve chip fabrication processes 40 years later, but you don't get royalties on the chips. Patents try to change that within a 20-year timespan, but they are not supposed to apply to scientific or mathematical discoveries, 20 years is too short for some advances, and they have a whole host of problems anyway.

mathattack 13y ago
I guess I'd divide the research world like this: 1) Pie in the sky research that is beyond the 20 year time horizon of long-view companies and 10 year time horizon of VCs. 2) Research that is amenable to teaching people how to research. 3) Research to advance one's career. 4) Research that is relatively close to Development. There are overlaps, and it can be hard to differentiate between the types until after the fact, but let's go with this model. #1 has to be funded federally (i.e. NSF), via philanthropy (i.e. Gates Foundation) or as a monopoly concession (i.e. Bell Labs). This can belong in the University or elsewhere, and may or may not be tied to teaching. #2 belongs in Universities, as it helps generate the next generation of scholars. #3 should not be financed by taxpayers. It's also hard to justify this in aggregate coming from tuition. Do we really need more papers on Ancient History, or should we invest the same money in better teaching? I understand you need to be an expert to teach, but it seems like a lot of publishing is purely to generate citations. #4 If these people can get real world jobs, why not send them to the real world where rather than stay in a profession with very scarce jobs?
- theOnliest 13y ago
  > Do we really need more papers on Ancient History, or should we invest the same money in better teaching? This seems to me like a pretty dim view of the humanities in general. Research in the humanities is not in the same category as research in Computer Science, for example; there is often little to no free-market value. People who enter the humanities tend to do so (at least in my experience) because knowledge for the sake of knowledge is something worth pursuing. Your next company might not make a fortune knowing more about agricultural practices of the ancient Macedonians, or the concept of fatherhood in the music of Robert Schumann, but people doing that research aren't doing it simply "to advance their career," and not necessarily just to teach new people how to research either. It has traditionally been the function of universities to foster this sort of research, as a general goal of "making the world a better, more knowledgeable place." It's a societal goal that goes way back: people say that humanity was set back something like 1000 years when the library at Alexandria burned down. This type of research doesn't fit neatly into any of your categories, and it is (I think) a more trenchant problem. Disillusioned humanities PhD's often have problems finding work in the "real world," since companies aren't keen on hiring someone who knows everything there is to know about Macedonian agriculture. -- a fairly disillusioned Ph.D. student in Music Theory
  - tomrod 13y ago
    What do you see as the value-add to taxpayers of humanities degrees? Would a patronage system work better for these types of degrees?
    - theOnliest 13y ago
      The value-add to taxpayers is much less concrete in the humanities. My argument was that research in the humanities is essentially done for the sake of doing research: to learn more about the world and the people in it. It is hard to see definite, monetary benefits, which is one of the reason arts/music/creative writing programs are being slashed cut in favor of match/science in primary education in the US. The benefit of studying the humanities is one of personal edification. Students who study art or music in school are likely to be more disciplined and score better on standardized tests than their non-musician/artist colleagues. Not to mention, young students who have a strong background in the humanities are often happier with their quality of life (I know that music was the highlight of my day/week when I was in school). A patronage program would be great for this type of degree...if any VCs out there want a personal music theorist I'd be happy to apply! My argument is that it is traditionally universities which have been the patrons of these degrees. This goes back at least to the earliest universities in Europe, where students learned the seven liberal arts: grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. The idea of the university was not to churn out good economic workers (as it tends to be today) but to produce well-rounded human beings. We in the humanities still think this is a worthy goal (and consequently, tend to make much less than our STEM counterparts).
pvdm 13y ago
You left out DARPA, which is the source of all things internet.

by mjn 13y ago

mathattack 13y ago

I guess I'd divide the research world like this: 1) Pie in the sky research that is beyond the 20 year time horizon of long-view companies and 10 year time horizon of VCs. 2) Research that is amenable to teaching people how to research. 3) Research to advance one's career. 4) Research that is relatively close to Development. There are overlaps, and it can be hard to differentiate between the types until after the fact, but let's go with this model. #1 has to be funded federally (i.e. NSF), via philanthropy (i.e. Gates Foundation) or as a monopoly concession (i.e. Bell Labs). This can belong in the University or elsewhere, and may or may not be tied to teaching. #2 belongs in Universities, as it helps generate the next generation of scholars. #3 should not be financed by taxpayers. It's also hard to justify this in aggregate coming from tuition. Do we really need more papers on Ancient History, or should we invest the same money in better teaching? I understand you need to be an expert to teach, but it seems like a lot of publishing is purely to generate citations. #4 If these people can get real world jobs, why not send them to the real world where rather than stay in a profession with very scarce jobs?

theOnliest 13y ago
> Do we really need more papers on Ancient History, or should we invest the same money in better teaching? This seems to me like a pretty dim view of the humanities in general. Research in the humanities is not in the same category as research in Computer Science, for example; there is often little to no free-market value. People who enter the humanities tend to do so (at least in my experience) because knowledge for the sake of knowledge is something worth pursuing. Your next company might not make a fortune knowing more about agricultural practices of the ancient Macedonians, or the concept of fatherhood in the music of Robert Schumann, but people doing that research aren't doing it simply "to advance their career," and not necessarily just to teach new people how to research either. It has traditionally been the function of universities to foster this sort of research, as a general goal of "making the world a better, more knowledgeable place." It's a societal goal that goes way back: people say that humanity was set back something like 1000 years when the library at Alexandria burned down. This type of research doesn't fit neatly into any of your categories, and it is (I think) a more trenchant problem. Disillusioned humanities PhD's often have problems finding work in the "real world," since companies aren't keen on hiring someone who knows everything there is to know about Macedonian agriculture. -- a fairly disillusioned Ph.D. student in Music Theory
- tomrod 13y ago
  What do you see as the value-add to taxpayers of humanities degrees? Would a patronage system work better for these types of degrees?
  - theOnliest 13y ago
    The value-add to taxpayers is much less concrete in the humanities. My argument was that research in the humanities is essentially done for the sake of doing research: to learn more about the world and the people in it. It is hard to see definite, monetary benefits, which is one of the reason arts/music/creative writing programs are being slashed cut in favor of match/science in primary education in the US. The benefit of studying the humanities is one of personal edification. Students who study art or music in school are likely to be more disciplined and score better on standardized tests than their non-musician/artist colleagues. Not to mention, young students who have a strong background in the humanities are often happier with their quality of life (I know that music was the highlight of my day/week when I was in school). A patronage program would be great for this type of degree...if any VCs out there want a personal music theorist I'd be happy to apply! My argument is that it is traditionally universities which have been the patrons of these degrees. This goes back at least to the earliest universities in Europe, where students learned the seven liberal arts: grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. The idea of the university was not to churn out good economic workers (as it tends to be today) but to produce well-rounded human beings. We in the humanities still think this is a worthy goal (and consequently, tend to make much less than our STEM counterparts).

pvdm 13y ago

You left out DARPA, which is the source of all things internet.