3 ms·

> One of my old math professors had a page devoted to this. He complained a lot about living in Hawaii Wow. No offense, but I can't imagine this guy with a rea

> One of my old math professors had a page devoted to this. He complained a lot about living in Hawaii Wow. No offense, but I can't imagine this guy with a real job. The self-entitlement is insane. I really think there's a forest for the tree problem with a lot of academics. The few I know get massive entitlements, days off, benefits, etc. I work in IT, worry about layoffs, get minimal holidays, have on-call, and generally get treated like an idiot savant because no one likes techies and techies go against the corporate 'sales guy' culture that dominates so many companies. I wish my biggest problem was being forced to stay in Hawaii. On top of it, I went to some pretty good schools and honestly half my professors were loathesome misanthropes. I can't imagine where they would fit elsewhere. They'd be destroyed in corporate culture in a new york minute. Perhaps I am suffering from a 'grass is greener' mentality, but sometimes it helps, i think, to remember where you came from and what you have. Some problems are real and others just aren't. I really wonder if the real issue is the ease that someone can enter many phd programs. With massive private/public loans and universities hungry for money, we might have long ago hit a tipping point of being too generous and letting a lot of people in who otherwise would have been unacceptable for phd programs, especially in the humanities. Of the academics I know, maybe one is a stellar thinker, the rest are just upper-middle class milquetoasts who wanted an easy life.

mililani 13y ago
I know what you're saying, but I also feel that one needs to consider the perspectives. Like they say, grass is greener. He was just not into Hawaii, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Personally, I hated living in the SF Bay Area. It was just not for me either. I know, I know. People think I'm nuts. But, after 10 years of living there, I finally understood my math professor. I was like, "Wow, I can't imagine professor Lady going through something like what I'm going through for over 30 years!" I really felt for him. By the time I finally left the Bay Area, I was utterly burnt out by big city, fast paced life. It made me the person who I am today: one foot out the door at all times. My wife and I moved around several times in the years since, and now that we're back in California living in a smaller coastal city, I realized what I hated about being in the Bay Area: it's just too big, too much of a rat race. Although I love living where we're at now, I can eventually see myself growing tired of it. And, that's the perspective, I think, you're missing out on. You are seeing things from your own perspective. I know that perspective well, too. I lived it for 10 years. I was a techie; I was always wary of being laid off; I had crap for vacations; I was ALWAYS learning new stuff; and as techies, we're always crapped on. I had business envy and thought of going to business school. So, I see your perspective. But, I also see his. Being in Hawaii, or any other small town/city, can get very old and tiresome. Several of the Hawaii math professors eventually gave up tenure and moved away to do other things. It makes one wonder about why these guys would be willing to give up a highly sought after thing in academia, tenure, to move away and start a new life. I think my old professor provides a good explanation, at least for some people, about why that happens. At least, it did for me.
- badman_ting 13y ago
  I have had very similar thoughts. I've only visited Hawaii for a short while, but I imagined the same thing - it's beautiful but actually living there would be hard. I also arrived at the same conclusions about big-city life, though I had been living in DC, not SF. Now I live in the Northwest which has become my favorite part of the country by far. At first I was fiercely unwilling to ever consider moving away, because I loved it here so much, but the longer I am here, the more I see that falling away. I don't want to always have one foot out the door. We moved around several times when I was a kid and I've always envied people who have roots in one place. But I suspect it will always be this way for me. At the same time, I don't have the desire to get out of the US that some of my friends have. I suspect that though the US has its problems, other places do too, and the grass is always greener as you say.
saraid216 13y ago
Being in Hawaii isn't automatically a happy fun lifestyle. It's a popular tourist destination, but it's still just a place like any other. And it's a pretty shitty place when your spouse leaves you because you can't go with them.
Nicholas_C 13y ago
>I wish my biggest problem was being forced to stay in Hawaii. I don't think Hawaii is as great to live in as it is to visit. Cost of living sucks, traffic sucks, traveling anywhere to visit relatives or another state/country requires flying. All of Hawaii only has a population of 1.4M. The metro population of Honolulu is 953,207. The state itself is just a little bit larger than New Jersey if you add the area of all the islands. Sure, the weather is great, but living in Hawaii for the rest of my life is not something I want to do. Now imagine being trapped there until you die because you're on a tenure track.
- EvanKelly 13y ago
  Hawaii is awesome to live in for some people. Cost of living isn't that bad, especially without a family. Once you start thinking about private education for your kids (since public is in the bottom quarter of the country) you will feel the squeeze. I absolutely love living in Honolulu, though there are plenty of people that move here and are disillusioned or miss the mainland very quickly.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rz2k 13y ago
I don't think expressions of awe and reverence for one's good fortune or the system that created that good fortune is productive at all. And, I think it becomes counter productive when that awe goes so far as to suppress one's discontent. In wealthy countries like the US, the quality of life improves every decade, and it only improves when people seek to change the system where faults remain. Professors are supposed to be thought leaders, not automatically and uncritically deferential to established thought or power structures. Perhaps his specialty is mathematics rather than the structure of academia, yet even still nothing is gained by subservience. Furthermore, how does it matter when a professor is a loathsome misanthrope or not? Most important is the quality of their original research, and second to that, the quality of instruction they provide, and both of those in relation to their cost. If their misanthropy affects their job choose people who are less misanthropic. If the institutions aren't getting enough A-level talent for research and instruction to choose from, then they should look at how they are attracting talent. Surely, the compensation is an entire basket comprised not only of money and tangible benefits, but such forms of autonomy as the ability to move without giving up progress in your career, the freedom to pursue research regardless of unpopular outcomes, and the ability to speak freely.* How best would you characterize "the problem with academia"? You seem to be saying (1)that there is too little talent in academia—an a outcome signify the combination of working conditions or salaries discourage talent from trying to enter academia. But then seem to say that (2)they are over compensated with days off and benefits. The only way to get such a juxtaposition of overcompensated and under-talented, though is if the positions are filled through some political manner such as personal PR, nepotism, graft etc, and yet that runs counter to your third complaint, that (3)academics aren't political enough to bow and scrape and show deference to everyone else. At least one of these complaints must have a flaw. Finally, how do you know you can't get a job in Hawaii? These days it takes remarkably little effort to browse job offerings and send out a few resumes. Maybe you'd end up with a lot of the same concerns anywhere you live, but maybe you'd also end up liking the climate a lot more. * Though tenure can make moving difficult, it does help enable intellectual and academic freedom, since it effectively limits the equivalent of having a boss who tells you to suppress an unpopular conclusion.

mililani 13y ago

I know what you're saying, but I also feel that one needs to consider the perspectives. Like they say, grass is greener. He was just not into Hawaii, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Personally, I hated living in the SF Bay Area. It was just not for me either. I know, I know. People think I'm nuts. But, after 10 years of living there, I finally understood my math professor. I was like, "Wow, I can't imagine professor Lady going through something like what I'm going through for over 30 years!" I really felt for him. By the time I finally left the Bay Area, I was utterly burnt out by big city, fast paced life. It made me the person who I am today: one foot out the door at all times. My wife and I moved around several times in the years since, and now that we're back in California living in a smaller coastal city, I realized what I hated about being in the Bay Area: it's just too big, too much of a rat race. Although I love living where we're at now, I can eventually see myself growing tired of it. And, that's the perspective, I think, you're missing out on. You are seeing things from your own perspective. I know that perspective well, too. I lived it for 10 years. I was a techie; I was always wary of being laid off; I had crap for vacations; I was ALWAYS learning new stuff; and as techies, we're always crapped on. I had business envy and thought of going to business school. So, I see your perspective. But, I also see his. Being in Hawaii, or any other small town/city, can get very old and tiresome. Several of the Hawaii math professors eventually gave up tenure and moved away to do other things. It makes one wonder about why these guys would be willing to give up a highly sought after thing in academia, tenure, to move away and start a new life. I think my old professor provides a good explanation, at least for some people, about why that happens. At least, it did for me.

badman_ting 13y ago
I have had very similar thoughts. I've only visited Hawaii for a short while, but I imagined the same thing - it's beautiful but actually living there would be hard. I also arrived at the same conclusions about big-city life, though I had been living in DC, not SF. Now I live in the Northwest which has become my favorite part of the country by far. At first I was fiercely unwilling to ever consider moving away, because I loved it here so much, but the longer I am here, the more I see that falling away. I don't want to always have one foot out the door. We moved around several times when I was a kid and I've always envied people who have roots in one place. But I suspect it will always be this way for me. At the same time, I don't have the desire to get out of the US that some of my friends have. I suspect that though the US has its problems, other places do too, and the grass is always greener as you say.

saraid216 13y ago

Being in Hawaii isn't automatically a happy fun lifestyle. It's a popular tourist destination, but it's still just a place like any other. And it's a pretty shitty place when your spouse leaves you because you can't go with them.

Nicholas_C 13y ago

>I wish my biggest problem was being forced to stay in Hawaii. I don't think Hawaii is as great to live in as it is to visit. Cost of living sucks, traffic sucks, traveling anywhere to visit relatives or another state/country requires flying. All of Hawaii only has a population of 1.4M. The metro population of Honolulu is 953,207. The state itself is just a little bit larger than New Jersey if you add the area of all the islands. Sure, the weather is great, but living in Hawaii for the rest of my life is not something I want to do. Now imagine being trapped there until you die because you're on a tenure track.

EvanKelly 13y ago
Hawaii is awesome to live in for some people. Cost of living isn't that bad, especially without a family. Once you start thinking about private education for your kids (since public is in the bottom quarter of the country) you will feel the squeeze. I absolutely love living in Honolulu, though there are plenty of people that move here and are disillusioned or miss the mainland very quickly.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rz2k 13y ago

I don't think expressions of awe and reverence for one's good fortune or the system that created that good fortune is productive at all. And, I think it becomes counter productive when that awe goes so far as to suppress one's discontent. In wealthy countries like the US, the quality of life improves every decade, and it only improves when people seek to change the system where faults remain. Professors are supposed to be thought leaders, not automatically and uncritically deferential to established thought or power structures. Perhaps his specialty is mathematics rather than the structure of academia, yet even still nothing is gained by subservience. Furthermore, how does it matter when a professor is a loathsome misanthrope or not? Most important is the quality of their original research, and second to that, the quality of instruction they provide, and both of those in relation to their cost. If their misanthropy affects their job choose people who are less misanthropic. If the institutions aren't getting enough A-level talent for research and instruction to choose from, then they should look at how they are attracting talent. Surely, the compensation is an entire basket comprised not only of money and tangible benefits, but such forms of autonomy as the ability to move without giving up progress in your career, the freedom to pursue research regardless of unpopular outcomes, and the ability to speak freely.* How best would you characterize "the problem with academia"? You seem to be saying (1)that there is too little talent in academia—an a outcome signify the combination of working conditions or salaries discourage talent from trying to enter academia. But then seem to say that (2)they are over compensated with days off and benefits. The only way to get such a juxtaposition of overcompensated and under-talented, though is if the positions are filled through some political manner such as personal PR, nepotism, graft etc, and yet that runs counter to your third complaint, that (3)academics aren't political enough to bow and scrape and show deference to everyone else. At least one of these complaints must have a flaw. Finally, how do you know you can't get a job in Hawaii? These days it takes remarkably little effort to browse job offerings and send out a few resumes. Maybe you'd end up with a lot of the same concerns anywhere you live, but maybe you'd also end up liking the climate a lot more. * Though tenure can make moving difficult, it does help enable intellectual and academic freedom, since it effectively limits the equivalent of having a boss who tells you to suppress an unpopular conclusion.