5 ms·

A really interesting read and very much echoes some of the reasons I chose not to pursue a career in academia. When you realise you're at a fork in the road, an

by jlees 17y ago

A really interesting read and very much echoes some of the reasons I chose not to pursue a career in academia. When you realise you're at a fork in the road, and down one route lies being a supervisor's paper-churning-out slave, researching something that doesn't even interest you so the department can get more funding...grnnnh. Edit: To clarify, this was my problem, as a PhD student with a PhD supervisor (not sure what the US term is; adviser?) who was forcing me to do the wrong thing all in the name of academia.

brent 17y ago
I wouldn't say that is an entirely accurate characterization. I don't know anyone in my department doing research that doesn't interest them. Students generally love the research they are doing and are probably a bit more autonomous than your comment seems to imply. I've taken both directions (industry then academia) and in industry I was a code-churning-out slave working on something that barely interested me. Now I work on my own on a topic that really interests me!
- amichail 17y ago
  Wouldn't you say that pursuing a startup is better than both industry and academia?
  - tome 17y ago
    Not if you enjoy really theoretical work which is far away from the money.
    - amichail 17y ago
      True, but the number of such people is very small.
  - bbgm 17y ago
    Not at all. Not a CS guy, but research was some of the most fun (and trying) times of my life. Figuring how things work, or how to make them work better is a ton of fun. It's not for everyone, sure, but all scenarios have their pros and cons
  - brent 17y ago
    I am certainly not ruling out a startup at some point. I was an early yc interviewee (and rejectee :-)) and afterwards just figured I'd enjoy my work for a while instead of worrying about the dollars and other minutiae. In reality, I'm just waiting for the right opportunity. "Life'a a marathon, not a sprint." An extremely successful local entrepreneur once told me that and it has stuck with me since.
- jlees 17y ago
  At the university I studied at, I wasn't the only student facing years of working on my supervisor's pet project in the name of funding. Some people stuck it out, some of us looked elsewhere for academic gratification, some switched supervisor; generally we all ended up doing something we loved, but the general situation at the university wasn't exactly set up to maximise student happiness from the get-go; instead, it maximised publication numbers and grants.
ggchappell 17y ago
It seems to me that you have it exactly backwards. First, as a university professor (in the U.S.), I don't have a supervisor in the sense the term is used in business. Yes, my department has a chair, but this is a "first among equals" position, periodically elected from among the members of the department. Governance is mostly collegial in nature, and much of the evaluation & promotion process is handled by committees. (Note: all this varies a fair amount from one university to another.) Second, I do whatever research I want; no one tells me what to research. My work needs to be able to get through a peer-review process and be published, but that is not much of a restriction on topics. Certainly academia has its downside; things like political nastiness, low pay and other budgetary woes, and excessive paperwork are often cited, along with various troubles with the tenure system. More related to what the article is talking about, there is the question of the value of research. If research topics are chosen on the basis of interest, then there is not much incentive to do something that makes the world a better place, generates money for someone, or anything like that.
- amichail 17y ago
  You don't have a supervisor. You have many and they hide behind anonymity -- namely your peers who evaluate your papers, grant proposals, etc. In a way this is much worse than having a supervisor in industry. At least your supervisor wants you to succeed. Your peers not so much unless it suits their agenda. The freedom you have is only an illusion. What good is this freedom if your grant proposals / papers get rejected? Moreover, your freedom is severely restricted by the scientific approach demanded by computer science. It is hard to fund/publish novel ideas that are not easy to evaluate. In startups, you can more easily explore novel ideas and change them without worrying about evaluation methodology. Ultimately, your criteria for success are simple: how many users do you have? how much money are you making? etc.
  - ggchappell 17y ago
    Well, it sounds like we want to live our lives in different ways. Which is fine. In any case, as I said, academia does have its downside. So, I think, does working for a large company, or starting a small one. Life is full of trade-offs. > In startups, you can more easily explore ideas and change them without worrying about evaluation methodology. Ultimately, your criteria for success are simple: how many users do you have? how much money are you making? etc. I find this comment odd. First, how can I explore something in a startup that isn't going to make anyone some money? That sounds like a severe restriction to me. Second, it seems strange to name your evaluation criteria ("how much money ..."), but also say you don't need to worry about it. Of course you need to worry about it. A company that doesn't make any money is going to die.

by jlees 17y ago

brent 17y ago

I wouldn't say that is an entirely accurate characterization. I don't know anyone in my department doing research that doesn't interest them. Students generally love the research they are doing and are probably a bit more autonomous than your comment seems to imply. I've taken both directions (industry then academia) and in industry I was a code-churning-out slave working on something that barely interested me. Now I work on my own on a topic that really interests me!

amichail 17y ago
Wouldn't you say that pursuing a startup is better than both industry and academia?
- tome 17y ago
  Not if you enjoy really theoretical work which is far away from the money.
  - amichail 17y ago
    True, but the number of such people is very small.
- bbgm 17y ago
  Not at all. Not a CS guy, but research was some of the most fun (and trying) times of my life. Figuring how things work, or how to make them work better is a ton of fun. It's not for everyone, sure, but all scenarios have their pros and cons
- brent 17y ago
  I am certainly not ruling out a startup at some point. I was an early yc interviewee (and rejectee :-)) and afterwards just figured I'd enjoy my work for a while instead of worrying about the dollars and other minutiae. In reality, I'm just waiting for the right opportunity. "Life'a a marathon, not a sprint." An extremely successful local entrepreneur once told me that and it has stuck with me since.
jlees 17y ago
At the university I studied at, I wasn't the only student facing years of working on my supervisor's pet project in the name of funding. Some people stuck it out, some of us looked elsewhere for academic gratification, some switched supervisor; generally we all ended up doing something we loved, but the general situation at the university wasn't exactly set up to maximise student happiness from the get-go; instead, it maximised publication numbers and grants.

ggchappell 17y ago

It seems to me that you have it exactly backwards. First, as a university professor (in the U.S.), I don't have a supervisor in the sense the term is used in business. Yes, my department has a chair, but this is a "first among equals" position, periodically elected from among the members of the department. Governance is mostly collegial in nature, and much of the evaluation & promotion process is handled by committees. (Note: all this varies a fair amount from one university to another.) Second, I do whatever research I want; no one tells me what to research. My work needs to be able to get through a peer-review process and be published, but that is not much of a restriction on topics. Certainly academia has its downside; things like political nastiness, low pay and other budgetary woes, and excessive paperwork are often cited, along with various troubles with the tenure system. More related to what the article is talking about, there is the question of the value of research. If research topics are chosen on the basis of interest, then there is not much incentive to do something that makes the world a better place, generates money for someone, or anything like that.

amichail 17y ago
You don't have a supervisor. You have many and they hide behind anonymity -- namely your peers who evaluate your papers, grant proposals, etc. In a way this is much worse than having a supervisor in industry. At least your supervisor wants you to succeed. Your peers not so much unless it suits their agenda. The freedom you have is only an illusion. What good is this freedom if your grant proposals / papers get rejected? Moreover, your freedom is severely restricted by the scientific approach demanded by computer science. It is hard to fund/publish novel ideas that are not easy to evaluate. In startups, you can more easily explore novel ideas and change them without worrying about evaluation methodology. Ultimately, your criteria for success are simple: how many users do you have? how much money are you making? etc.
- ggchappell 17y ago
  Well, it sounds like we want to live our lives in different ways. Which is fine. In any case, as I said, academia does have its downside. So, I think, does working for a large company, or starting a small one. Life is full of trade-offs. > In startups, you can more easily explore ideas and change them without worrying about evaluation methodology. Ultimately, your criteria for success are simple: how many users do you have? how much money are you making? etc. I find this comment odd. First, how can I explore something in a startup that isn't going to make anyone some money? That sounds like a severe restriction to me. Second, it seems strange to name your evaluation criteria ("how much money ..."), but also say you don't need to worry about it. Of course you need to worry about it. A company that doesn't make any money is going to die.