4 ms·

I wasn't moved to downvote, but there are at least three claims that I think are misguided and a bit distasteful. But most of the rest is junk unless your goal

I wasn't moved to downvote, but there are at least three claims that I think are misguided and a bit distasteful. But most of the rest is junk unless your goal is to be a moderately salaried reasonably secure employee. This seems to imply that there is something wrong with wanting to be a "moderately salaried reasonably secure employee". That's actually more or less what most people want, and our society and educational system, despite its problems, still does a remarkably good job of making that happen. High school and college never have and can't teach you what you need to be perform on the highest levels. College (and graduate school) isn't going help you perform at the highest levels in things the 100m sprint, or in car salesmanship, or how to hustle. But academia is still the best currently evolved system for training people to do research in disciplines like computer science or sociology. Third, both of your posts imply that the only measure of value - of self, and to society - is wealth. It isn't news to anyone that academia isn't the optimal, shortest-path to make a lot of money. That's not why people do it. Finally, you're making sweeping claims about the value of college and the entire educational system, when the original post was about a much more focussed issue of corporate basic research vs. academic research.

lionhearted 17y ago
This was incredibly valuable to me to read. Thank you. > Third, both of your posts imply that the only measure of value - of self, and to society - is wealth. This reminded me of something I took for granted that most people thought - when most people don't think it. I'd done quite a lot of cowboy frontier-style research when I was younger, and written much of it up. But I really disliked marketing, producing, selling. Eventually I met the head of Apple's Market Research for Canada, and he was an amazing guy. He taught me so much. One thing he really, really hammered into me was that it's good and right to be compensated for the value you create. I got a motto from one of those talks in Toronto - "Edison not Tesla." By all accounts, Tesla was the greater scientist and probably better human being than Edison. But Edison became very wealthy, and Tesla had a bit of a hard life. So I do absolutely believe that the making the greatest contribution to society and wealth are and should be married - and that it keeps you on track. I think researchers ought to become wealthy as they benefit humanity, and it's a tragedy when they don't. So bettering of people's lives, truly, measurably, ought to result in the doer of good also having their life improved. Wealth isn't the only measure of that, but it is a large one. Thanks again for your reply, very insightful to me.
- neilc 17y ago
  it's good and right to be compensated for the value you create There are ways to be compensated other than wealth, however. For example, many people would consider that a tenured position at a prestigious university, with a generally very pleasant work environment, the freedom to work on whatever you like, to collaborate with whomever you choose, and to have the security of tenure, is ample non-monetary compensation. Academics also enjoy considerable prestige -- both in terms of their reputations to others in their field, and their respect from society at large. You may not value these sorts of non-monetary compensation, but some people do. making the greatest contribution to society and wealth are and should be married Perhaps they "should be", but in reality, I think they clearly are not. Perhaps an ideal system would be different, but that's not the system we have.

lionhearted 17y ago

This was incredibly valuable to me to read. Thank you. > Third, both of your posts imply that the only measure of value - of self, and to society - is wealth. This reminded me of something I took for granted that most people thought - when most people don't think it. I'd done quite a lot of cowboy frontier-style research when I was younger, and written much of it up. But I really disliked marketing, producing, selling. Eventually I met the head of Apple's Market Research for Canada, and he was an amazing guy. He taught me so much. One thing he really, really hammered into me was that it's good and right to be compensated for the value you create. I got a motto from one of those talks in Toronto - "Edison not Tesla." By all accounts, Tesla was the greater scientist and probably better human being than Edison. But Edison became very wealthy, and Tesla had a bit of a hard life. So I do absolutely believe that the making the greatest contribution to society and wealth are and should be married - and that it keeps you on track. I think researchers ought to become wealthy as they benefit humanity, and it's a tragedy when they don't. So bettering of people's lives, truly, measurably, ought to result in the doer of good also having their life improved. Wealth isn't the only measure of that, but it is a large one. Thanks again for your reply, very insightful to me.

neilc 17y ago
it's good and right to be compensated for the value you create There are ways to be compensated other than wealth, however. For example, many people would consider that a tenured position at a prestigious university, with a generally very pleasant work environment, the freedom to work on whatever you like, to collaborate with whomever you choose, and to have the security of tenure, is ample non-monetary compensation. Academics also enjoy considerable prestige -- both in terms of their reputations to others in their field, and their respect from society at large. You may not value these sorts of non-monetary compensation, but some people do. making the greatest contribution to society and wealth are and should be married Perhaps they "should be", but in reality, I think they clearly are not. Perhaps an ideal system would be different, but that's not the system we have.