5 ms·

It seems to me that there is an enormous amount of negativity towards academia, here. I think it's very unbalanced. Let me redress this a little. It is true th

It seems to me that there is an enormous amount of negativity towards academia, here. I think it's very unbalanced. Let me redress this a little. It is true that young academics are not well paid, don't have good job security, and that the academic system is run from the top in the wrong way. Grant-chasing is a fact of life, and administration can distract you from your work. However, being an academic can be great. I've worked in industry and academia, and I found academia to be less stressful, more rewarding, and more intellectually challenging. Here are a few great things about academia: * You get to work with really smart, creative, intellectual, people. Probably the smartest people you meet in your life will be colleagues. It's a very stimulating environment. * You get to work with young and enthusiastic students and researchers, who constantly challenge you and bring new ideas to the table. It keeps you young. * You see ideas and technologies that most people don't. For example, I recently saw a bunch of robots in development at another UK institution. * It's an opportunity to continue learning, with access to great resources (huge libraries, experts on a wide variety of disciplines and sub disciplines down the hallway / across campus). * You are not constrained to thinking about product development or the short-term. You can think on much greater timescales, and propose and investigate ideas with no direct application. * When you make a real contribution, find a great result, or inspire other researchers, it's hugely rewarding. * You're part of a machine that has generated enormous progress. Often people don't recognise it, particularly in Computer Science, because commercial companies appear to have "invented" things that they actually developed from work in academia. The most incredible discoveries and theories have come from academia. * Every day can be different. You don't repeat the same research twice, so it's a constant progression. This can be really exciting and stimulating. * You get to travel the world to collaborate, to attend conferences etc. Sometimes you can extend these trips to holidays; I've travelled more since I became an academic than anyone I know outside of academia. You have the opportunity to move overseas and work at foreign institutions. * You have flexibility in terms of what you wear, how you work, where you work, who you work with -- you get to choose much of the time. * You have an enormous amount of freedom to organise your time as you see fit. Your hours and holidays are incredibly flexible. * The money, whilst not great, is enough to live on. If you progress up the ladder to be a senior lecturer or professor (UK), the money is good.

mattfenwick 13y ago
I'd like to present an alternative viewpoint based solely on my own personal experiences at a middling institution. (I should note that I have no industrial experience to compare to) > I found academia to be less stressful, more rewarding, and more intellectually challenging. I've found it to be quite stressful, unrewarding, and intellectually smothering. Reasons include overlong hours, jerks and bullies in positions of power, territorial battles, arrogance and shortsightedness. > You get to work with really smart, creative, intellectual, people. Probably the smartest people you meet in your life will be colleagues. It's a very stimulating environment. Some of the people I work with are really smart. Others are also really smart, but don't care (deeply about what they do). Most are pretty smart, but not very interested in anything outside of an extremely narrow focus. Since most people have no interest in or knowledge of what others do, or desire to learn, I find it decidedly un-stimulating. > You get to work with young and enthusiastic students and researchers, who constantly challenge you and bring new ideas to the table. As a young and enthusiastic student bringing new ideas to the table, I'm on the other end of this. Ideas are met with resistance, mockery, endless rounds of meetings and debates, and intellectual laziness (i.e. "I could spend some time thinking about this idea and give meaningful feedback, but instead I'll just axe it"). It's incredibly demotivating. > It's an opportunity to continue learning, with access to great resources (huge libraries, experts on a wide variety of disciplines and sub disciplines down the hallway / across campus). Partly agree -- the free access to academic journals is great (although, arguably, they should be free to everybody since the studies are typically performed with public funds, but that's another debate). It's also great to have the freedom to pursue topics I'm interested in, solely because I'm interested in them. However, I haven't really gotten much benefit from being physically near to experts. Perhaps that's my fault. > You are not constrained to thinking about product development or the short-term. You can think on much greater timescales, and propose and investigate ideas with no direct application. This has not been true in my experience. We're forced to focus on what is publishable (often, in the short term). Also, negative results (i.e. disproving a hypothesis, or showing that there's no link between two variables) -- which can be significant, applicable data -- aren't publishable. We're also forced to focus on what is likely to bring in grant money. > When you make a real contribution, find a great result, or inspire other researchers, it's hugely rewarding. Wouldn't know. My work has been crap-covered crap, with a side-helping of crap. I feel that the current trend to focus only on extraordinarily meaningful results has actually made it tougher for people to make real contributions -- because if you don't sell it (in the sense of over-hyping it), even if it's going to make a real difference, it'll be tough to publish in a decent journal, or to get grant money. > You're part of a machine that has generated enormous progress. The most incredible discoveries and theories have come from academia. I don't want to be part of a machine that has generated enormous progress, if 1) it's not currently generating enormous progress, or 2) I'm not helping it to generate enormous progress. > You get to travel the world to collaborate, to attend conferences etc. Sometimes you can extend these trips to holidays; I've travelled more since I became an academic than anyone I know outside of academia. You have the opportunity to move overseas and work at foreign institutions. Agreed. Conferences are awesome. > You have flexibility in terms of what you wear, how you work, where you work, who you work with -- you get to choose much of the time. How, where, with whom -- I have little control over these. > You have an enormous amount of freedom to organise your time as you see fit. Your hours and holidays are incredibly flexible. This has been somewhat true for me. However, doesn't really matter how flexible the hours are, if they're way too much (and they are). > The money, whilst not great, is enough to live on. Agreed. However, the number of hours worked must be taken into account. I expect that it would be extremely tough to afford a family.

mattfenwick 13y ago

I'd like to present an alternative viewpoint based solely on my own personal experiences at a middling institution. (I should note that I have no industrial experience to compare to) > I found academia to be less stressful, more rewarding, and more intellectually challenging. I've found it to be quite stressful, unrewarding, and intellectually smothering. Reasons include overlong hours, jerks and bullies in positions of power, territorial battles, arrogance and shortsightedness. > You get to work with really smart, creative, intellectual, people. Probably the smartest people you meet in your life will be colleagues. It's a very stimulating environment. Some of the people I work with are really smart. Others are also really smart, but don't care (deeply about what they do). Most are pretty smart, but not very interested in anything outside of an extremely narrow focus. Since most people have no interest in or knowledge of what others do, or desire to learn, I find it decidedly un-stimulating. > You get to work with young and enthusiastic students and researchers, who constantly challenge you and bring new ideas to the table. As a young and enthusiastic student bringing new ideas to the table, I'm on the other end of this. Ideas are met with resistance, mockery, endless rounds of meetings and debates, and intellectual laziness (i.e. "I could spend some time thinking about this idea and give meaningful feedback, but instead I'll just axe it"). It's incredibly demotivating. > It's an opportunity to continue learning, with access to great resources (huge libraries, experts on a wide variety of disciplines and sub disciplines down the hallway / across campus). Partly agree -- the free access to academic journals is great (although, arguably, they should be free to everybody since the studies are typically performed with public funds, but that's another debate). It's also great to have the freedom to pursue topics I'm interested in, solely because I'm interested in them. However, I haven't really gotten much benefit from being physically near to experts. Perhaps that's my fault. > You are not constrained to thinking about product development or the short-term. You can think on much greater timescales, and propose and investigate ideas with no direct application. This has not been true in my experience. We're forced to focus on what is publishable (often, in the short term). Also, negative results (i.e. disproving a hypothesis, or showing that there's no link between two variables) -- which can be significant, applicable data -- aren't publishable. We're also forced to focus on what is likely to bring in grant money. > When you make a real contribution, find a great result, or inspire other researchers, it's hugely rewarding. Wouldn't know. My work has been crap-covered crap, with a side-helping of crap. I feel that the current trend to focus only on extraordinarily meaningful results has actually made it tougher for people to make real contributions -- because if you don't sell it (in the sense of over-hyping it), even if it's going to make a real difference, it'll be tough to publish in a decent journal, or to get grant money. > You're part of a machine that has generated enormous progress. The most incredible discoveries and theories have come from academia. I don't want to be part of a machine that has generated enormous progress, if 1) it's not currently generating enormous progress, or 2) I'm not helping it to generate enormous progress. > You get to travel the world to collaborate, to attend conferences etc. Sometimes you can extend these trips to holidays; I've travelled more since I became an academic than anyone I know outside of academia. You have the opportunity to move overseas and work at foreign institutions. Agreed. Conferences are awesome. > You have flexibility in terms of what you wear, how you work, where you work, who you work with -- you get to choose much of the time. How, where, with whom -- I have little control over these. > You have an enormous amount of freedom to organise your time as you see fit. Your hours and holidays are incredibly flexible. This has been somewhat true for me. However, doesn't really matter how flexible the hours are, if they're way too much (and they are). > The money, whilst not great, is enough to live on. Agreed. However, the number of hours worked must be taken into account. I expect that it would be extremely tough to afford a family.