3 ms·

This is a bizarre comment given that the problem with science is that the funding model is coming from the government (NIH, NSF) and non-profits (ie, 501c3s).

by 001sky 13y ago

Malarkey73 13y ago
They are wrong because graduate students have never had any relation to the unions or collective power. You are wrong because academic science is indeed a profoundly and increasingly competitive business with insufficient places for all to succeed and dog-eat-dog competition for funding and fellowships. Regardless of where the money comes from most scientists are like small businesses trying to expand or startups seeking investment. If anything the pursuit of short-term wins gets in the way of free thinking or risky projects.
- 001sky 13y ago
  "You are wrong because academic science is indeed a profoundly and increasingly competitive business" How is a government funded a non-profit anything like "business"? Its a political process, fundamentally. Politics is also competitive. I think the economics analogy is quite flawed (in th GP's comment).
  - arh68 13y ago
    Business is political. Non-profits are political. That's the connection. What do you see as the difference here?
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      The lack of competitive markets on the supply side of research funding.
  - calibraxis 13y ago
    You might find these interesting discussions of universities as corporations: "In California, the main universities -- Berkeley and UCLA -- they're essentially Ivy League private universities -- colossal tuition, tens of thousands of dollars, huge endowment. General assumption is they are pretty soon going to be privatized, and the rest of the system will be, which was a very good system -- best public system in the world -- that's probably going to be reduced to technical training or something like that. The privatization, of course, means privatization for the rich [and a] lower level of mostly technical training for the rest. And that is happening across the country." (http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20110406.htm http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20110406.htm) "The growth of administrative work has directly resulted from introducing corporate management techniques. Invariably, these are justified as ways of increasing efficiency and introducing competition at every level. What they end up meaning in practice is that everyone winds up spending most of their time trying to sell things: grant proposals; book proposals; assessments of students’ jobs and grant applications; assessments of our colleagues; prospectuses for new interdisciplinary majors; institutes; conference workshops; universities themselves (which have now become brands to be marketed to prospective students or contributors); and so on." (http://thebaffler.com/past/of_flying_cars http://thebaffler.com/past/of_flying_cars) (As for economics vs. politics, we may wonder if it's ideological to separate them.)
seanccox 13y ago
Bizarre how? Work is work, regardless of whom the work is done for or their income (taxes vs. sales). A worker can be as easily exploited by a state entity as by a corporate one, which is why teachers, firefighters, and police tend to have unions. Can you elaborate on the 'bizarreness' of my previous comment?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- humanrebar 13y ago
  I can't speak for 001sky, but I believe you misunderstand the origin of the problem here. The means of production in academia is overwhelmingly socialized right now. This top-down decision making is both what causes funding to stagnate (since it's up to bureaucratic and political whims) and causes labor issues to fester (since the number of alternate employers is so low). With that in mind, a call to unionization seems rather futile. There is no body to bargain with, just bureaucrats and budgets. What leverage would a union have against that? Fixing loopholes in labor laws is overdue, but why unionize and create yet another special interest group? Workers in all sorts of industries, including tech, are exempted from labor laws. Why not start a broader movement to fix those loopholes?

This is a bizarre comment given that the problem with science is that the funding model is coming from the government (NIH, NSF) and non-profits (ie, 501c3s).

by 001sky 13y ago

This is a bizarre comment given that the problem with science is that the funding model is coming from the government (NIH, NSF) and non-profits (ie, 501c3s).

Malarkey73 13y ago

They are wrong because graduate students have never had any relation to the unions or collective power. You are wrong because academic science is indeed a profoundly and increasingly competitive business with insufficient places for all to succeed and dog-eat-dog competition for funding and fellowships. Regardless of where the money comes from most scientists are like small businesses trying to expand or startups seeking investment. If anything the pursuit of short-term wins gets in the way of free thinking or risky projects.

001sky 13y ago
"You are wrong because academic science is indeed a profoundly and increasingly competitive business" How is a government funded a non-profit anything like "business"? Its a political process, fundamentally. Politics is also competitive. I think the economics analogy is quite flawed (in th GP's comment).
- arh68 13y ago
  Business is political. Non-profits are political. That's the connection. What do you see as the difference here?
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    The lack of competitive markets on the supply side of research funding.
- calibraxis 13y ago
  You might find these interesting discussions of universities as corporations: "In California, the main universities -- Berkeley and UCLA -- they're essentially Ivy League private universities -- colossal tuition, tens of thousands of dollars, huge endowment. General assumption is they are pretty soon going to be privatized, and the rest of the system will be, which was a very good system -- best public system in the world -- that's probably going to be reduced to technical training or something like that. The privatization, of course, means privatization for the rich [and a] lower level of mostly technical training for the rest. And that is happening across the country." (http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20110406.htm http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20110406.htm) "The growth of administrative work has directly resulted from introducing corporate management techniques. Invariably, these are justified as ways of increasing efficiency and introducing competition at every level. What they end up meaning in practice is that everyone winds up spending most of their time trying to sell things: grant proposals; book proposals; assessments of students’ jobs and grant applications; assessments of our colleagues; prospectuses for new interdisciplinary majors; institutes; conference workshops; universities themselves (which have now become brands to be marketed to prospective students or contributors); and so on." (http://thebaffler.com/past/of_flying_cars http://thebaffler.com/past/of_flying_cars) (As for economics vs. politics, we may wonder if it's ideological to separate them.)

seanccox 13y ago

Bizarre how? Work is work, regardless of whom the work is done for or their income (taxes vs. sales). A worker can be as easily exploited by a state entity as by a corporate one, which is why teachers, firefighters, and police tend to have unions. Can you elaborate on the 'bizarreness' of my previous comment?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
humanrebar 13y ago
I can't speak for 001sky, but I believe you misunderstand the origin of the problem here. The means of production in academia is overwhelmingly socialized right now. This top-down decision making is both what causes funding to stagnate (since it's up to bureaucratic and political whims) and causes labor issues to fester (since the number of alternate employers is so low). With that in mind, a call to unionization seems rather futile. There is no body to bargain with, just bureaucrats and budgets. What leverage would a union have against that? Fixing loopholes in labor laws is overdue, but why unionize and create yet another special interest group? Workers in all sorts of industries, including tech, are exempted from labor laws. Why not start a broader movement to fix those loopholes?