How Academia Resembles a Drug Gang (2013)(blogs.lse.ac.uk)
blogs.lse.ac.uk
How Academia Resembles a Drug Gang (2013)
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/12/11/how-academia-resembles-a-drug-gang/
127 comments
It is a silly article, but there is an important distinction that I think you're missing. In a typical hierarchical organization there is a clear heterogeneity in job skills. The fry cook at McDonalds does not have, and will likely never have, the skills necessary to become an executive. Similarly in a law firm the secretary cannot advance to become a law partner: he is not a lawyer. There is no expectation that the line worker would ever become the CEO, at least not without going back to school.
But in academia, and I suppose in a criminal gang, everyone has the same skillset. PhDs are notionally being trained with the specific abilities necessary to become a professor. Those at the very bottom have the capability to move to the very top, and likewise are hoping to do so.
But in academia, and I suppose in a criminal gang, everyone has the same skillset. PhDs are notionally being trained with the specific abilities necessary to become a professor. Those at the very bottom have the capability to move to the very top, and likewise are hoping to do so.
> But in academia, and I suppose in a criminal gang, everyone has the same skillset. PhDs are notionally being trained with the specific abilities necessary to become a professor.
They really aren't. First of all, scientifically speaking each PhD is unique as it focuses on specific venues of research. Thus within the same research group you often have an extremely diverse crowd doing independent research on multiple projects at the same time.
Then there's the fact that the assertion about "being trained (...) to become a professor" makes no sense. PhD students are trained to conduct independent research on a specific subject, and rarely also on how to apply to research grants. Being a professor, which is more of a supervisor/administrator role, is not factored into the equation, and the teaching component is a very small and tangential aspect of being a professor.
The truth of the matter is that graduate schools are effectively diploma mills to entice prospective workers to work long hours for low wages in exchange for a qualification and shot at a research career. Their work is focused on learning how to do research while focusing on a specialized topic, which arguably has no parallel with what a professor does.
They really aren't. First of all, scientifically speaking each PhD is unique as it focuses on specific venues of research. Thus within the same research group you often have an extremely diverse crowd doing independent research on multiple projects at the same time.
Then there's the fact that the assertion about "being trained (...) to become a professor" makes no sense. PhD students are trained to conduct independent research on a specific subject, and rarely also on how to apply to research grants. Being a professor, which is more of a supervisor/administrator role, is not factored into the equation, and the teaching component is a very small and tangential aspect of being a professor.
The truth of the matter is that graduate schools are effectively diploma mills to entice prospective workers to work long hours for low wages in exchange for a qualification and shot at a research career. Their work is focused on learning how to do research while focusing on a specialized topic, which arguably has no parallel with what a professor does.
Just like a drug gang too, there's striking. To be an RP bio, at least at the time I was looking into it, you needed 3 years of field experience, a paper published in a reputable journal and you had to pay a $10,000 yearly fee to the association of applied biology and attend a few of their meetings and stuff.
That's if you wanted the ability to sign your name on government projects, otherwise, you had to just find and pay someone willing to write their name on your project.
That's if you wanted the ability to sign your name on government projects, otherwise, you had to just find and pay someone willing to write their name on your project.
In the US, to be a computer science professor you generally only need a PhD in CS, which you're getting as a PhD grad student. It helps to also have some good publications under your belt and a good thesis and a good advisor. But these are all things a PhD student can achieve. No fees, no field experience, none of that stuff. No special requirements for obtaining grant funding. This is the case for a great many academic fields.
I can only speak for what it was like as a biologist, which does have such artificial barriers.
Job heterogeneity doesn't distinguish these situations nearly that much. The relevant comparison between academia and McDonald's is probably between regular employee and store manager/PhD Student and professor. In both cases promotion to the next level is plausible and happens regularly.
If we consider non-lawyers employed by a law firm, then we should do the same with a university, which would distinguish both from the drug gang/McDonald's type where the bottom run has more promotion opportunity. Of course, this isn't even really right about academia -- a large university employs lots of people at many levels and it's perfectly possible to be promoted from administrative assistant to a management role.
It is true that some professions, such as university faculty, law, and medicine, have specific credential requirements that limit advancement into those professions from other parts of the organizations that employ such professionals. But this is a way that academia etc is _different from_ a drug gang, not similar to it.
If we consider non-lawyers employed by a law firm, then we should do the same with a university, which would distinguish both from the drug gang/McDonald's type where the bottom run has more promotion opportunity. Of course, this isn't even really right about academia -- a large university employs lots of people at many levels and it's perfectly possible to be promoted from administrative assistant to a management role.
It is true that some professions, such as university faculty, law, and medicine, have specific credential requirements that limit advancement into those professions from other parts of the organizations that employ such professionals. But this is a way that academia etc is _different from_ a drug gang, not similar to it.
Rumour has it doing a PhD might actually be a rewarding experience in its own right, and not derive its value solely from the possibility of remaining in academia.
If you removed the inner core of high reward jobs, then would the rest of the structure discussed remain unchanged?
If so, then would the numbers filling up the outer ring go up or down?
The economic pattern is both interesting and explanatory, even if it does not fully explain every agent's motivation to participate within the system examined.
If so, then would the numbers filling up the outer ring go up or down?
The economic pattern is both interesting and explanatory, even if it does not fully explain every agent's motivation to participate within the system examined.
What, you want to ascribe value to learning itself? But it's so hard to measure! Simpler then to ignore it and use lifetime wages as the only relevant measure.
What, you want me to be happy that I started my PhD in 2009, finished in 2017 when I was 30, but I suppose I did occassionally learn something interesting in between browsing reddit and watching buffy, so I shouldn't complain that most of my colleagues are worth in the millions while I'm finally trying to make myself in my first real job? Sure sounds like a good deal.
I'm sorry that that was your PhD experience. It's a pity that enthusiastic students end up there, often because they're not given the right environment to thrive (e.g. a good lab and a supervisor that cares).
There isn't much to say to respond to that, apart that it seems to me that, in a parallel universe, you might have had a more fulfilling experience, or you might have cut your losses and walked away sooner.
That's the cruel aspect of the PhD. It really seems like a lot of important things are outside of one's control, especially when it comes to important factors in mental health. Nobody's starting a PhD with the goal of sinking hours into Reddit and Buffy because they feel awful about their PhD experience.
There isn't much to say to respond to that, apart that it seems to me that, in a parallel universe, you might have had a more fulfilling experience, or you might have cut your losses and walked away sooner.
That's the cruel aspect of the PhD. It really seems like a lot of important things are outside of one's control, especially when it comes to important factors in mental health. Nobody's starting a PhD with the goal of sinking hours into Reddit and Buffy because they feel awful about their PhD experience.
I've seen a guy peddle shoes become an instagram star and go on to put said shoes in boutiques.
Moral of the story, unless you are born wealthy you have to make your own luck.
Moral of the story, unless you are born wealthy you have to make your own luck.
Cool, that’s not how it’s sold though, nor is it how the students are trained.
If it is just a hobby, why bother with expensive university? Most people can perform perfectly valid research from their bedroom or garage.
> If it is just a hobby, why bother with expensive university?
Perhaps it allows you to work closely with other researchers in your field. Also note that PhD students usually don't pay tuition.
> Most people can perform perfectly valid research from their bedroom or garage.
This seems pretty unfunded. Unless you mean most people who have already done a PhD.
Perhaps it allows you to work closely with other researchers in your field. Also note that PhD students usually don't pay tuition.
> Most people can perform perfectly valid research from their bedroom or garage.
This seems pretty unfunded. Unless you mean most people who have already done a PhD.
Cost of masters degree, living cost in expensive city, lost wages... It is expensive!
You do not have to be member of academia to interact with other researches.
》This seems pretty unfunded. Unless you mean most people who have already done a PhD.
My experience is from astronomy and cryptography. You can make good contribution without being part of academia. Data are freely available on internet. Also code.
You do not have to be member of academia to interact with other researches.
》This seems pretty unfunded. Unless you mean most people who have already done a PhD.
My experience is from astronomy and cryptography. You can make good contribution without being part of academia. Data are freely available on internet. Also code.
If observational astronomers all work independently out of their apartments with a $1k telescope for a few decades, a lot of areas of theoretical astronomy are going to languish. Not to mention other fields that need crazy things like an actual lab.
Work independently with $1k telescope from balcony? Why? This is completely out of context.
First I talked about data analysis and software development.
Secondly, even in observational astronomy, anyone can make proposal and get observing time on large instrument. Or rent 20" in Chile and use it remotely.
First I talked about data analysis and software development.
Secondly, even in observational astronomy, anyone can make proposal and get observing time on large instrument. Or rent 20" in Chile and use it remotely.
I’m sure you’re aware that astronomers use instruments other than terrestrial optical telescopes, many of which you cannot rent any equivalent of. My point was that you first dismissed needing to get a PhD to do research out of hand, and then refined your dismissal to astronomy and cryptography. Whichever scope you choose, there’s a wide body of research you can’t do without either institutional connections or a very large trust fund, no matter how much of an autodidact you are.
I have personal experience from those two fields. Perhaps other fields are different. But trust me, you do not need a PhD to get observing time on 4 meter telescope.
How about LIGO? Are there some 4km interferometers I can rent for a few years of gravitational wave observations I want to do? Has Elon Musk launched an orbital X-Ray telescope like Chandra I can get some time on without breaking the bank? If I want to do some bleeding edge radio work, where do I sign up to decide where the next Arecibo is pointed?
I’m taking you at your word that you have experience with astronomy research. But that makes it impossible to take you at your word when you appear to lack the imagination to come up with observational astronomy you can’t do without institutional support.
I’m taking you at your word that you have experience with astronomy research. But that makes it impossible to take you at your word when you appear to lack the imagination to come up with observational astronomy you can’t do without institutional support.
My point is about doing research without PhD as a hobby. Since I would not get paid anyway, I do not see reason to spend a few years, just to get paperwork sorted. Most data are publicly available. Most researchers are very happy for helping hand.
Privately founded research instruments are different topic.
LIGO data are here: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligo-data
Xray data are also publicly available, I would suggest skyview https://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/current/cgi/query.pl
Requests for Arecibo telescope are here: https://www.naic.edu/ao/scientist-user-portal/proposal-submi...
Privately founded research instruments are different topic.
LIGO data are here: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligo-data
Xray data are also publicly available, I would suggest skyview https://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/current/cgi/query.pl
Requests for Arecibo telescope are here: https://www.naic.edu/ao/scientist-user-portal/proposal-submi...
>My point is about doing research without PhD as a hobby.
And his/her point is that hobbyists aren't a replacement for a class of professional scientists.
It's great that it's your hobby, but to made consistent advances there needs to be a credentialed class of scientists who spend their lives funding and creating the tools and techniques you use for your hobby.
And his/her point is that hobbyists aren't a replacement for a class of professional scientists.
It's great that it's your hobby, but to made consistent advances there needs to be a credentialed class of scientists who spend their lives funding and creating the tools and techniques you use for your hobby.
No progress is possible without HR department :)
Oh god I wish. I cant even afford the equipment for many non-research projects, assuming they would sell it to me in the first place.
"If it is just a hobby"
What, from the post you are replying to, leads you to this? If it was not an intentional misrepresentation, I am curious about the line of thought leading to this.
What, from the post you are replying to, leads you to this? If it was not an intentional misrepresentation, I am curious about the line of thought leading to this.
The post above it (copied below). It’s a very valid counterpoint imo :-)
Rumour has it doing a PhD might actually be a rewarding experience in its own right, and not derive its value solely from the possibility of remaining in academia.
Rumour has it doing a PhD might actually be a rewarding experience in its own right, and not derive its value solely from the possibility of remaining in academia.
It is quite possible to do research as a hobby. It is very difficult to do proper research training as a hobby, and essentially impossible to do a research apprenticeship (which is what a PhD is) outside of an environment where you are being supervised by other PhDs. If you have a spouse or close friend who's prepared to supervise you, fine - but otherwise it's likely to be at a university or research lab.
Coupled to that, PhD slots are generally funded, so university at PhD level is normally less 'expensive' and more 'opportunity costs'.
Coupled to that, PhD slots are generally funded, so university at PhD level is normally less 'expensive' and more 'opportunity costs'.
It's also a harrowing experience that causes clinical depression in many.
It's fine to say that doing a PhD isn't an economic activity, in which case there's little relevance talking about the economic factors involved. That's fine. It's difficult to marry the high-minded pursuit of education in and of itself with the actual reality of being a PhD student though.
A PhD is slave work and exploitation as 'right of passage'. Afterwards, it continues with post-docs. It's all about names and prestige from here on.
I saw enough of it to make me question ethics and morality in that space which is more akin to investment banking than the sort of ideal young students are led to believe in.
It's not all for the lofty goal of broadening knowledge. That's merely a side effect. It's really about grants and impact scores because that's how scientists make a living.
E.g. the mental gymnastics I have seen to make data fit enough for that Cell publication are possible because the enormous complexities of microbiology allow for it and these possibilities are actively exploited because that's how you make money and talent flow. Otherwise, impact scores would also benefit from science that finds out how thing's don't work. That's important knowledge too - but none that collects grants.
Science really isn't a more ethical field than any given industry and one shouldn't build their career on such idealisms.
I saw enough of it to make me question ethics and morality in that space which is more akin to investment banking than the sort of ideal young students are led to believe in.
It's not all for the lofty goal of broadening knowledge. That's merely a side effect. It's really about grants and impact scores because that's how scientists make a living.
E.g. the mental gymnastics I have seen to make data fit enough for that Cell publication are possible because the enormous complexities of microbiology allow for it and these possibilities are actively exploited because that's how you make money and talent flow. Otherwise, impact scores would also benefit from science that finds out how thing's don't work. That's important knowledge too - but none that collects grants.
Science really isn't a more ethical field than any given industry and one shouldn't build their career on such idealisms.
Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. It would be wrong to unconditionally assert either way.
I did a pure mathematics PhD and was given a general area to look at and a problem to solve but that was really just a starting point, I had the flexibility to solve something related so long as it was interesting. The papers I published had my sole authorship; not even my supervisor's name was on them (except in the acknowledgements). I spent much of my time, for several years, in a room on my own with nothing more than a pencil and paper (except occasionally a book). All I did was sit there and think hard. It was glorious, and definitely not slave labour.
Postscript: I did not go into academia. The PhD helped me get (and do) my job afterwards, possibly not as much as if I had worked in industry that whole time, but it was a fulfilling life experience.
I did a pure mathematics PhD and was given a general area to look at and a problem to solve but that was really just a starting point, I had the flexibility to solve something related so long as it was interesting. The papers I published had my sole authorship; not even my supervisor's name was on them (except in the acknowledgements). I spent much of my time, for several years, in a room on my own with nothing more than a pencil and paper (except occasionally a book). All I did was sit there and think hard. It was glorious, and definitely not slave labour.
Postscript: I did not go into academia. The PhD helped me get (and do) my job afterwards, possibly not as much as if I had worked in industry that whole time, but it was a fulfilling life experience.
I also did pure mathematics, and this summarises my experiences perfectly.
Pure mathematics I believe it's a field on its own: for one, you have salaries but no huge costs with equipment/material.
The work is also more independent and not connected to anything outside of mathematics in principle (though the work might evolve to something interesting to huge backers, think Number Theory or Control Theory/Finance/etc)
The work is also more independent and not connected to anything outside of mathematics in principle (though the work might evolve to something interesting to huge backers, think Number Theory or Control Theory/Finance/etc)
> A PhD is slave work and exploitation as 'right of passage'.
You can't assume all fields like that. I know that some people here on HN have described PhD programs in lab-based STEM fields as killer hours, low pay, and lots of carrying water for their supervisors. But in my own discipline at least (a subbranch of linguistics), a PhD is typically paid with an ordinary European middle class salary, and the topic is chosen by the student and only agreed to by the supervisor, so you aren’t being slave labour for the supervisor’s own ends.
You can't assume all fields like that. I know that some people here on HN have described PhD programs in lab-based STEM fields as killer hours, low pay, and lots of carrying water for their supervisors. But in my own discipline at least (a subbranch of linguistics), a PhD is typically paid with an ordinary European middle class salary, and the topic is chosen by the student and only agreed to by the supervisor, so you aren’t being slave labour for the supervisor’s own ends.
... and you are likely unionized. And this state of affairs is likely the result of past decades of action by senior and junior academic staff, and without it - would likely be (and possibly is being) eroded.
This depends a lot on the field and the lab. Humanities PhDs have terrible career prospects, but are not generally exploited as cheap labour like PhDs in a lot of science fields.
I agree with you about grants and impact scores, though.
I agree with you about grants and impact scores, though.
Humanities tend to have much lower stipends such that it needs to be supplemented with tons of teaching assistantships.
That depends on the country and on the field. In certain Western European countries, for instance, funding may be adequate without teaching duties.
I really do agree in the time I spent as a graduate student and postdoc I saw so many questionable data "massaging" tricks that aren't including with the paper methods. Oh the copy number segment doesn't cover the gene I'm interested in but it looks like it should be copy number 4 and not copy number 2, therefore; I will hand edit the file and fix these issues for all 100+ samples in my study. I think parts of this kind of "massaging" is slowly changing as more and more people push for open access data and open access code. Science would benefit greatly from having access to the raw data and code used to generate the conclusions of a given paper.
As a graduate student there is some level of protection from a supervisor punishing you if you have differences in opinion but as a post-doc those kinds of protections are tossed out the window. I have a friend who was 3 years into their post-doc and had an argument with their principle investigator about the interpretation of their results and how their work would be published only to have their contract cancelled the next day. In the end keeping quiet probably would have got them at least a first author paper but they ended up with 3rd authorship on their own project.
As a graduate student there is some level of protection from a supervisor punishing you if you have differences in opinion but as a post-doc those kinds of protections are tossed out the window. I have a friend who was 3 years into their post-doc and had an argument with their principle investigator about the interpretation of their results and how their work would be published only to have their contract cancelled the next day. In the end keeping quiet probably would have got them at least a first author paper but they ended up with 3rd authorship on their own project.
> A PhD is slave work and exploitation as 'right of passage'. Afterwards, it continues with post-docs. It's all about names and prestige from here on.
I'm sorry this was your experience. My PhD in philosophy was very rewarding, as have been my academic jobs since---with the inevitable ups and downs.
I'm sorry this was your experience. My PhD in philosophy was very rewarding, as have been my academic jobs since---with the inevitable ups and downs.
Science and academia are different.
Not my PhD. We were explicitly told by a "motivational" speaker about how no-one would care about what we wrote, and we were basically just going through the motions and practicing "real" research.
The general impression I got from the higher-ups was that the speaker was right.
The general impression I got from the higher-ups was that the speaker was right.
Depends on what your chosen research is... there is no law stopping PhD candidates from publishing impactful papers.
Of course, it depends entirely on your cohort/field.
My point was that it's extremely common for PhD students to just go through the motions and pretend to be doing impactful work.
There is at best a tacit approval of treating your studies as "pretend research". At worst, depending on how the grants/scholarships are doled out and the personality of the supervisor, there is active pressure to go down a certain path that both you and your supervisor know will not produce impactful research but instead maximise your probability of publishing a "passable" thesis.
This is not in Lesbian Dance Theory, this is in the Faculty of Engineering at a top-ranked university in Australia.
There is at best a tacit approval of treating your studies as "pretend research". At worst, depending on how the grants/scholarships are doled out and the personality of the supervisor, there is active pressure to go down a certain path that both you and your supervisor know will not produce impactful research but instead maximise your probability of publishing a "passable" thesis.
This is not in Lesbian Dance Theory, this is in the Faculty of Engineering at a top-ranked university in Australia.
As a reviewer, it’s when you see one of those papers where the impact is not so clear, and at best is extremely incremental or just a slightly different take on something that has already been done. You can tell a grad student spent a lot of effort to come up with this. If you reject it, you’re just going to make his/her graduation that much harder. It’s like looking at a very involved homework. The alternative is to gatekeep the field a lot more and make people drop from their PhD midway through.
> My point was that it's extremely common for PhD students to just go through the motions
I think you misspelled 'human'. Of course people do that. And of course there are places to 'practice pretend research' - we've just spent multiple generations flipping universities into something much closer to businesses. Business caters to customers, what do you expect them to do?
I think you misspelled 'human'. Of course people do that. And of course there are places to 'practice pretend research' - we've just spent multiple generations flipping universities into something much closer to businesses. Business caters to customers, what do you expect them to do?
I know of a recent Engineering PhD that "discovers" stuff that is already in an international standard, it looks like just going through the motions to me.
I wonder who is supposedly doing the "real" research, then?
Best thing I did when I started my PhD was heavily vet a PhD supervisor in advance, using connections established through undergrad research.
Yes, choose a school with a good name, but Dave yourself some pain and arrange an advisor before you start your program!
Yes, choose a school with a good name, but Dave yourself some pain and arrange an advisor before you start your program!
Remind me of an old Usenet joke.
> The upgrade path to the most powerful and satisfying computer:
> * Pocket calculator
> * Commodore Pet / Apple II / TRS 80 / Commodore 64 / Timex Sinclair
> (Choose any of the above)
> * IBM PC
> * Apple Macintosh
> * Fastest workstation of the time (HP, DEC, IBM, SGI: your choice)
> * Minicomputer (HP, DEC, IBM, SGI: your choice)
> * Mainframe (IBM, Cray, DEC: your choice)
> And then you reach the pinnacle of modern computing facilities:
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxG R A D U A T E xxxxxxxxx S T U D E N T S xxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The upgrade path to the most powerful and satisfying computer:
> * Pocket calculator
> * Commodore Pet / Apple II / TRS 80 / Commodore 64 / Timex Sinclair
> (Choose any of the above)
> * IBM PC
> * Apple Macintosh
> * Fastest workstation of the time (HP, DEC, IBM, SGI: your choice)
> * Minicomputer (HP, DEC, IBM, SGI: your choice)
> * Mainframe (IBM, Cray, DEC: your choice)
> And then you reach the pinnacle of modern computing facilities:
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxG R A D U A T E xxxxxxxxx S T U D E N T S xxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I've encountered a variation on this, he programmed in a very high-level programming language called "graduate student".
* https://mathoverflow.net/a/11135
* https://mathoverflow.net/a/11135
Not too rewarding when you're left with no real way to earn a living after.
The pursuit of knowledge is great and all, but it doesn't pay the rent.
The pursuit of knowledge is great and all, but it doesn't pay the rent.
> Rumour has it doing a PhD might actually be a rewarding experience in its own right
Have you ever met a single person that said so? Because I haven’t.
Have you ever met a single person that said so? Because I haven’t.
Hi, I don't regret my PhD in retrospect (I did have plenty of regrets and misgivings along the way). The PhD gave me a lot of free education (and not having to worry much about getting W's on classes, so less fear of failure), free travel to conferences, and learning things the hard way. Learning to program helped me get a job after graduation. I wasn't planning to get back into academia but two years ago I got a teaching job somewhat out of the blue, which wouldn't have been possible without the degree (it's not a research university like my alma mater--I don't think I would have wanted to get back into that world). The jobs in industry after the PhD helped me pay off my undergrad student loans. I don't know if you can think of it as being a rewarding experience in it's own right but it is something of intangible value and opportunity. My Grandma always said that no one can take your education away from you.
Hello, I doubt the OP ever met me but I started a PhD to study what I'm really interested in.
I have a stipend from my scholarship which is about half of the money I was making as a software developer before I started my PhD. So I took a big salary cut. It was (is) totally worth it. Not for any prospect of securing tenure but for the freedom to follow my intellectual curiosity.
(yeah, like dang keeps saying :P)
I have a stipend from my scholarship which is about half of the money I was making as a software developer before I started my PhD. So I took a big salary cut. It was (is) totally worth it. Not for any prospect of securing tenure but for the freedom to follow my intellectual curiosity.
(yeah, like dang keeps saying :P)
Thanks for all the replies, was quite the whitepill.
I only know people that got burned out by it, had terrible advisors, consider it a waste of time in retrospect and so on. Good to know this is not universal.
I only know people that got burned out by it, had terrible advisors, consider it a waste of time in retrospect and so on. Good to know this is not universal.
[deleted]
Hi. I fit that category.
I think a PhD is a rewarding experience in its own right. It’s hard work but many worthwhile things are hard work.
[deleted]
Me.
Granted, it was a quarter century ago. And while I think it was rewarding, I'd never say that it's without risk, or that doctoral education isn't in need of substantial reform.
Granted, it was a quarter century ago. And while I think it was rewarding, I'd never say that it's without risk, or that doctoral education isn't in need of substantial reform.
Doesn't this deepen the rift between people trying to make a living from it and independantly wealthy people focusing on learning ?
It can't be great to be pitted against people who can forgo money altogether.
It can't be great to be pitted against people who can forgo money altogether.
Interesting article, however I think the main problem is the premise that all, or even the majority, of graduating PhD students wish to continue to work in academia.
It will be different across industries, but I work in a pharma R&D company of around 120 people. At a guess, around 40% of the entire staff (admin, management, scientists, technicians) are PhD graduates. They're working in industry and reasonably well paid.
The point is that a desire to secure senior academic positions, such as tenured professor, are not the only reasons people decide to pursue a PhD.
It will be different across industries, but I work in a pharma R&D company of around 120 people. At a guess, around 40% of the entire staff (admin, management, scientists, technicians) are PhD graduates. They're working in industry and reasonably well paid.
The point is that a desire to secure senior academic positions, such as tenured professor, are not the only reasons people decide to pursue a PhD.
By contrast I work in a field (experimental plasma physics) where there are relatively few industrial opportunities. For grad students in my field who wish to carry on working in science once they graduate, there are few options outside of academia.
But they would know that going in.
My parents are both PHDs in physics and professors etc, but I knew 15 years ago how hard it would be get a decent job in the field and didn’t pursue sciences.
So I don’t really have much sympathy for grad students who complain about having lack of opportunities.
My parents are both PHDs in physics and professors etc, but I knew 15 years ago how hard it would be get a decent job in the field and didn’t pursue sciences.
So I don’t really have much sympathy for grad students who complain about having lack of opportunities.
I would say that when I started my PhD (aged 22) I didn't think about career prospects in the way I do now. I'm not complaining about my situation -- I love my job.
I suppose my point is that people know what the job market is like in abstract from the beginning, appreciating the actuality of it is something which requires more maturity than is present in many (most?) PhD applicants.
I suppose my point is that people know what the job market is like in abstract from the beginning, appreciating the actuality of it is something which requires more maturity than is present in many (most?) PhD applicants.
Agreed. The world is much harsher now and jobs in most industries are not secure, I didn’t want to sound harsh in my post (and it wasn’t directed at you in any way since it was clear from your post that you had something), but the reality is young students need to think carefully about their job prospects at an earlier stage than they did before.
I don't think the average undergraduate has any idea of what is involved in postgraduate work or what working in academia actually involves.
Further, the incentives are misaligned. I wonder if we (USA) restored government funding for higher ed, would college programs be more honest about graduation rates and job placements.
When I was working in academia as a researcher it was all EU or UK Government funding and those incentives were just as misaligned.
They need to though. I wish it wasn’t the case, but largely it is in my opinion.
Do any career options give recent graduates a realistic idea of what is involved in working in that field?
I'm not sure that academia is any worse than a lot of other fields and it does, potentially, have a lot of advantages.
[e.g. I co-founded a startup with someone I met in academia]
I'm not sure that academia is any worse than a lot of other fields and it does, potentially, have a lot of advantages.
[e.g. I co-founded a startup with someone I met in academia]
In a crude sense, more career options swing the relationship in favor of the employees vs employers, so it can be used as a guideline for whether a career will be rewarding and fairly compensated.
I would argue people in academics are on average harder workers than other fields, so overall they have it a bit tougher given all the work they put in. There are successes in every field, I am just making some vast generalizations for our discussion :-)
I would argue people in academics are on average harder workers than other fields, so overall they have it a bit tougher given all the work they put in. There are successes in every field, I am just making some vast generalizations for our discussion :-)
Yes, because a 25 year old has the same maturity and life experience as a 40 year old (or similar age numbers). How dare the young make decisions that from the point of view of someone with much more experience looks silly?
Also, the assumption is faulty that brains are like computers and processing identical information using a non-diseased fully functioning brain should obviously give the same result regardless of age.
Also, the assumption is faulty that brains are like computers and processing identical information using a non-diseased fully functioning brain should obviously give the same result regardless of age.
> But they would know that going in.
If you go into a drug gang, you also know going in that conditions for the lower-rung "associates" are poor.
To be less flippant: While it's better that you at least know you're getting screwed, that doesn't make fair. It is justified and worthwhile to struggle to change the conditions of employment, even if you agreed to them and knew them going in.
If you go into a drug gang, you also know going in that conditions for the lower-rung "associates" are poor.
To be less flippant: While it's better that you at least know you're getting screwed, that doesn't make fair. It is justified and worthwhile to struggle to change the conditions of employment, even if you agreed to them and knew them going in.
Although one needs to be wary of sometimes employers dangling the prospects of a brighter future to extract more out of you.
Maybe I am just jaded :-)
Maybe I am just jaded :-)
"But they would know that going in."
Kind of.
Even most mature academics don't really have an idea of how industry really works, let alone 22 year olds.
Yes, on some crude level, but the materiality of what that means is hard to fathom.
Kind of.
Even most mature academics don't really have an idea of how industry really works, let alone 22 year olds.
Yes, on some crude level, but the materiality of what that means is hard to fathom.
I don’t disagree. It’s at a crude level and its obviously quite difficult when you are young and still haven’t fully formed a view of the world and the direction it’s headed in. But the signs were there — this is at least as far back as 2005 when I graduated. Even in the early 00s, it wasn’t an easy situation and my guess is from even before. Science has always been a difficult field to crack into.
I wonder if fields like physics are just to broad and we should be more specific? And that physics/biology/maths etc. will just become a precursor to other fields.
"of graduating PhD students wish to continue to work in academia"
I'd be interested in the number who think they want to work in academia at the start of their PhD and compare this with the number at the end - I certainly went completely off the idea, not so much because I thought getting a job would be difficult but that I really didn't like what academic research encourages.
Mind you a pyramidal "up or out" structure can be found in areas like law - relatively few lawyers will make partner or even want to take on what that involves.
I'd be interested in the number who think they want to work in academia at the start of their PhD and compare this with the number at the end - I certainly went completely off the idea, not so much because I thought getting a job would be difficult but that I really didn't like what academic research encourages.
Mind you a pyramidal "up or out" structure can be found in areas like law - relatively few lawyers will make partner or even want to take on what that involves.
I probably fall into this camp, as does a close friend of mine.
We actually talked about it recently and she mentioned there's a significant percentage of PhDs that don't continue into academia (something like a quarter or a half,can't remember the actual figure).
It's a serious enough issue that it's been nicknamed the "PhD brain drain".
Essentially, people burn out during the PhD and don't want to go back. Which is fair enough.
We actually talked about it recently and she mentioned there's a significant percentage of PhDs that don't continue into academia (something like a quarter or a half,can't remember the actual figure).
It's a serious enough issue that it's been nicknamed the "PhD brain drain".
Essentially, people burn out during the PhD and don't want to go back. Which is fair enough.
True - but isn't this mainly limited to the sciences? (genuine question)
No. I think all publishing disciplines seeking grants and tenure tend to the same outcome (not an academic, worked in university research and general staff many years ago in 3 UK and one Australian uni)
The problem I see is that scientists make so little money it is very tempting for them to accept indecent offers like "We pay you X if your study about Y finds Z". I observed this mostly when it comes to studies about cannabis as there was a big push to discredit the plant as a valid medicine and an alternative to "regular" medication.
I've never seen anyone accept an obvious offer like that, I'd be surprised if many do, as it would be the end of your career.
On the other hand, someone can offer research funding every year and people can notice they happen to fund people who, in previous years, found results they were happy with. No-one ever has to publicly say anything.
On the other hand, someone can offer research funding every year and people can notice they happen to fund people who, in previous years, found results they were happy with. No-one ever has to publicly say anything.
A group I worked with used to get a lot of work in the fossil fuel industry. We mainly worked on safety training applications for workers in industry so it didn't bother me.
What I can say is that there was an unspoken pressure to avoid lines of research we suspected may result in outcomes the industry sponsoring us may not be too happy about. So ultimately, outside of some safety applications, we had a huge selection bias in research we would accept so as not to upset the gravy train of funding that kept pouring in.
What I can say is that there was an unspoken pressure to avoid lines of research we suspected may result in outcomes the industry sponsoring us may not be too happy about. So ultimately, outside of some safety applications, we had a huge selection bias in research we would accept so as not to upset the gravy train of funding that kept pouring in.
*Or the beginning of your career...
> I observed this mostly
So you’re not only saying you’ve seen scientists take bribes, but that you’ve seen it on enough occasions to find patterns?!
How many briberies have you observed? Didn’t you feel compelled to report them to the ethics committee?
So you’re not only saying you’ve seen scientists take bribes, but that you’ve seen it on enough occasions to find patterns?!
How many briberies have you observed? Didn’t you feel compelled to report them to the ethics committee?
I think the OP is referring to negative studies involving cannabis that receives funding from opposing groups. Alternatively, you have all the suspect studies describing miraculous plant properties paid by food company that put them in yogurt or health supplements.
Your phrasing is really unfair to OP based on OP's phrasing!
A bribe would be, "you just published x - we'll pay you y to publish a retraction" or if OP had said: "We pay you X if you publish Z", omitting any pretense of an actual study.
Or if OP included scare quotes: We pay you X if your study about Y "finds" Z.
To use an example not based on science, if Intel said, "we'll donate $1 billion to your university if you find a room temperature superconductor" nobody would interpret that as a bribe for you to publish fake results. Some financial incentive might be there to be corrupt, but a bribe it is not. The whole world isn't a corrupt wall street bank, and academia certainly isn't.
Companies can give explicit or implicit incentives but that doesn't make those bribes. Plus, academics list the sources of their funding.
To think it through even more. If Intel did communicate the above incentive to universities, then surely all research universities would devote very significant funds to researching room temperature superconductors. But would they publish other results, or even theoretical impossibility results (We show that under the standard model, it is impossible to ...) If it were a bribe, they would not, but clearly in practice they would. Likewise, if a cigarette company gives a similar incentive to show that cigarettes are good appetite suppresants and make you thinner, and somebody did the research and found that cigarettes reduce your inhibition and make you fatter on average, would they publish their results even though they'd get grants for the opposite results? I think they surely would still publish them. They wouldn't just put them in their drawer like a null result.
So I think it is really unfair to call it a bribe, and your comment goes too far.
A bribe would be, "you just published x - we'll pay you y to publish a retraction" or if OP had said: "We pay you X if you publish Z", omitting any pretense of an actual study.
Or if OP included scare quotes: We pay you X if your study about Y "finds" Z.
To use an example not based on science, if Intel said, "we'll donate $1 billion to your university if you find a room temperature superconductor" nobody would interpret that as a bribe for you to publish fake results. Some financial incentive might be there to be corrupt, but a bribe it is not. The whole world isn't a corrupt wall street bank, and academia certainly isn't.
Companies can give explicit or implicit incentives but that doesn't make those bribes. Plus, academics list the sources of their funding.
To think it through even more. If Intel did communicate the above incentive to universities, then surely all research universities would devote very significant funds to researching room temperature superconductors. But would they publish other results, or even theoretical impossibility results (We show that under the standard model, it is impossible to ...) If it were a bribe, they would not, but clearly in practice they would. Likewise, if a cigarette company gives a similar incentive to show that cigarettes are good appetite suppresants and make you thinner, and somebody did the research and found that cigarettes reduce your inhibition and make you fatter on average, would they publish their results even though they'd get grants for the opposite results? I think they surely would still publish them. They wouldn't just put them in their drawer like a null result.
So I think it is really unfair to call it a bribe, and your comment goes too far.
[deleted]
I suspect usually it's just "We are a group about Z, we pay you X to study Y". It's implicitly clear that if your results aren't what they are looking for this might be the last grant you get from them. It's not necessary to coerce or bribe, you can just give people the right/wrong incentive.
"was a big push to discredit the plant "
? The pro cannabis industry is huge, and there are billions pouring into schemes and ideas for 'proving' the otherwise.
The University of Saskatchewan had an entire lab (semi private, wing of the school), formerly used to research making oils etc. from what, transformed into a 100% cannabis research lab.
? The pro cannabis industry is huge, and there are billions pouring into schemes and ideas for 'proving' the otherwise.
The University of Saskatchewan had an entire lab (semi private, wing of the school), formerly used to research making oils etc. from what, transformed into a 100% cannabis research lab.
More than half of PhD students in STEM programs are international students, often from developing nations, for whom the calculus is slightly different. A graduate student's stipend is probably comparable to the wages they could have made back home.
As a prospective student from a developing country looking to apply for fall'21 cycle- not really. Given the stipend provided by an avg US university, and taking cost of living into account, my standard of living is likely to be lower in USA than in my home country.
There are lots of great positives about doing a PhD in USA- salary/stipend is definitely not one of them.
There are lots of great positives about doing a PhD in USA- salary/stipend is definitely not one of them.
Not to mention immigration.
The academic departments increasingly play important roles in immigration. They probably benefit from closer integration with government’s immigration organizations.
The academic departments increasingly play important roles in immigration. They probably benefit from closer integration with government’s immigration organizations.
Australia especially.
to be fair, it is fairly easy to immigrate to Australia. Any higher graduate course and a decent score on their test usually suffices and they give you a PR from the outset. Same for Canada.
If anything, the immigration equation is far more relevant to the US than it is to other countries. A top PhD used to be able to fetch you an eb1 Green Card which is a lot faster than the eb2. However, 'eb' GCs have to be filed by your employer, which means leaving Academia or having a decent enough post-graduation industry outlook. With eb-1 requirements only getting more stringent, this perk is also becoming less relevant.
If anything, the immigration equation is far more relevant to the US than it is to other countries. A top PhD used to be able to fetch you an eb1 Green Card which is a lot faster than the eb2. However, 'eb' GCs have to be filed by your employer, which means leaving Academia or having a decent enough post-graduation industry outlook. With eb-1 requirements only getting more stringent, this perk is also becoming less relevant.
Sorry to be blunt but you are comparing oranges to apples.
A poor country PhD student/grad in the US/EU still has to live under minimum wage conditions. The fact that the stipend might be considerable more money in their home country, does not necessarily mean that in PPP terms - phd grads are better off than say, a 'developed country' individual.
If you moved to a developed country with higher living standard costs with higher salary than your home country. Even though, you earned considerably more than your home country; the money might be nothing more than minimum wage in your new place of residence.
Comparing developed country humans to developing country humans's expectations just adds more fuel to the assumption that people from poor countries are happy to work for less. It applies the same for developed country humans moving from place to place and even states here in the US.
A poor country PhD student/grad in the US/EU still has to live under minimum wage conditions. The fact that the stipend might be considerable more money in their home country, does not necessarily mean that in PPP terms - phd grads are better off than say, a 'developed country' individual.
If you moved to a developed country with higher living standard costs with higher salary than your home country. Even though, you earned considerably more than your home country; the money might be nothing more than minimum wage in your new place of residence.
Comparing developed country humans to developing country humans's expectations just adds more fuel to the assumption that people from poor countries are happy to work for less. It applies the same for developed country humans moving from place to place and even states here in the US.
Emigration from the developing countries (assuming you can make it) is always a positive gradient. It is not just the salary (which might not be what you’d think, considering the cost of living), but also networking, opportunities, available career paths, etc. Of course everybody wants to emigrate from the less fortunate places.
I worked as a part-time lecturer for one course, over two years, and I did it for the love of it, because I had to take time off my high-paying contract to do it, and it cost me thousands to do it. I don't regret it, and quite enjoyed it, but I was appalled at the state of academia and how poorly resourced it was, despite the vast amount of money being charged the students. Permanent staff were few, and I don't really understand how academia is designed for anyone but those at the top. The article's basic point is right.
I'm very confused about the overall attitude and trends at the moment when it comes to higher education especially postgraduate education and academia. On one hand there seems to be a certain amount of disillusionment with universities, degrees, getting a PhD and working in academia. At the same time the education requirements for jobs seem to be inflated and way more jobs require an MSc or a PhD these days.
By the way, the article is from 2013.
By the way, the article is from 2013.
It helps to separate the PhD from the general academia angst because it’s in an entirely different category.
The complaints about the lower degrees are usually about value for cost, remote learning, etc. This is easily compatible with the fact that employers want employees to have degrees. It’s even one of the primary reasons the prices have been able to go up so much for a degree (economic value).
The PhD programs, research, and tenure track academia in general is an entirely different beast with some pretty fundamental flaws. Very few companies require PhDs so the job opportunities for a PhD student who wants a position that requires one are scarce.
I got my PhD from a top 10 CS research university and it was shocking how much competition the graduates had to get a tenure track position at some third rate university when they graduated. Publications in top journals and even a solid post doc just got you the opportunity to fight 8 other equally qualified candidates for a single slot.
The professors do not emphasize enough that tenure track research faculty is nothing more than a fantasy for 90% of the graduates, and that’s ignoring the 50% of PhD students who dropped out before finishing.
The complaints about the lower degrees are usually about value for cost, remote learning, etc. This is easily compatible with the fact that employers want employees to have degrees. It’s even one of the primary reasons the prices have been able to go up so much for a degree (economic value).
The PhD programs, research, and tenure track academia in general is an entirely different beast with some pretty fundamental flaws. Very few companies require PhDs so the job opportunities for a PhD student who wants a position that requires one are scarce.
I got my PhD from a top 10 CS research university and it was shocking how much competition the graduates had to get a tenure track position at some third rate university when they graduated. Publications in top journals and even a solid post doc just got you the opportunity to fight 8 other equally qualified candidates for a single slot.
The professors do not emphasize enough that tenure track research faculty is nothing more than a fantasy for 90% of the graduates, and that’s ignoring the 50% of PhD students who dropped out before finishing.
> it was shocking how much competition the graduates had to get a tenure track position at some third rate university when they graduated
Counterpoint: assuming a stable size of universities, the average number per professor of supervised doctoral students who receive tenure is 1.
How many doctoral students does a professor have on average over the course of their career?
By that point, the situation really shouldn't be surprising. It only seems that way because the 20th century saw a period of extremely fast growth of universities, and societal expectations have a lot of inertia.
Counterpoint: assuming a stable size of universities, the average number per professor of supervised doctoral students who receive tenure is 1.
How many doctoral students does a professor have on average over the course of their career?
By that point, the situation really shouldn't be surprising. It only seems that way because the 20th century saw a period of extremely fast growth of universities, and societal expectations have a lot of inertia.
It's not surprising when you're wise enough to realise this, but I think it's a deceptive promise sold to incoming students. You hear so many horror stories from people who didn't realise they were signing their life away when they signed. It seems very predatory to me.
I'm not sure when you got your degree but now (well, at least pre-COVID) there are often more openings than can be filled. (Speaking of CS here.) Anyone I know who graduated in a similar time frame as me didn't have too much difficulty getting a faculty position somewhere (without postdoc).
I can't talk about the US, but in the UK there's very good reason for disillusionment. Since 1990 there are 5x as many people getting university degrees, and the rate at which those students get 1st class degrees has increased by 4x.
That is to say, the number of people able to get degrees has sky rocketed, and the classification of their degrees has also sky rocketed over the past 30 years.
So we're left with the obvious question: Do we suddenly have 20x as many students capable of getting a first class degree when nothing in the rest of our data suggests a sudden rise in education standards or economic improvement?
Because your first class degree at a UK university is worht 1/20th of what a first class degree at a UK university was in 1990.
That is to say, the number of people able to get degrees has sky rocketed, and the classification of their degrees has also sky rocketed over the past 30 years.
So we're left with the obvious question: Do we suddenly have 20x as many students capable of getting a first class degree when nothing in the rest of our data suggests a sudden rise in education standards or economic improvement?
Because your first class degree at a UK university is worht 1/20th of what a first class degree at a UK university was in 1990.
I think it's the HN bubble: happy people don't write "I love my work" posts, and if they did they wouldn't be posted here. "Academia sucks", on the other hand, is the type of post that reinforces the idea and makes it to the frontpage.
There is also the problem of people conflating "Academia" with "Academia in the US".
There is also the problem of people conflating "Academia" with "Academia in the US".
Literally every community which have good ties with academia underlines this point so strongly that we can't ignore it as just a bubble
I'm a PhD student in the UK.
I love most of my work.
I also think academia sucks (I don't love those parts).
Life ain't binary.
I love most of my work.
I also think academia sucks (I don't love those parts).
Life ain't binary.
Yeah, adding they year to the title would be a good idea.
There is a difference though, drug gang members often have limited alternatives for making a decent wage, whereas academics are more than qualified for a lot of decent-paying jobs.
I don't disagree that it's a dual economy however. Academia is supposed to be sort of a self-governing effort (note all the committees faculty members are a part of) and core members decide much of their own fate; it's no surprise that they make sure they get their lion's share first and the rest are distributed meagerly to the non-core members.
I don't disagree that it's a dual economy however. Academia is supposed to be sort of a self-governing effort (note all the committees faculty members are a part of) and core members decide much of their own fate; it's no surprise that they make sure they get their lion's share first and the rest are distributed meagerly to the non-core members.
I used to work at a place where we offered Ph.D. scholarships in the UK for UK nationals doing Compsci. We had lots and lots of problems getting anyone to accept. Now these were not high paid positions, but they offered a basic income and a full ride in terms of fees, and opportunities for teaching on top. No one wanted to do it - they could all get more money going contracting. Non UK students were keen, but unfortunately because of the grant conditions were inelligable.
I did 6 years as a Research Associate (contract researcher) in a UK university in the late 1980s and 1990s. For some part of that time the UK was in recession and it was actually kind of neat having a 3 year contract with guaranteed employment.
Mind you - I knew other people who had terrible problems with contract renewals, getting mortgages etc. Fortunately, I never had those problems but I'm pretty sure that was sheer luck.
Mind you - I knew other people who had terrible problems with contract renewals, getting mortgages etc. Fortunately, I never had those problems but I'm pretty sure that was sheer luck.
Levitt's discovery that income distribution within drug gangs is extremely skewed in favor of those at the top, seems very uninspired. The same is true for just about any company or organisation, so why should we be at all surprised that it also holds true for an illegal enterprise?
Now, the question of why a drug gang pays low-level members less than (say) McDonald's, is more interesting. Is it because gang members have a higher expectation of future wealth than McDonald's staff, i.e. McDonald's has worse career mobility than drug trading?
Your chance of rising from a burger flipper to McDonald's board or C-suite is effectively zero, whereas you might rise high in a drug gang (promotions might be faster if your bosses have a tendency to get shot or imprisoned!) So you could say that McDonald's has to pay its workers more to offset the smaller future wealth expectations.
Now, the question of why a drug gang pays low-level members less than (say) McDonald's, is more interesting. Is it because gang members have a higher expectation of future wealth than McDonald's staff, i.e. McDonald's has worse career mobility than drug trading?
Your chance of rising from a burger flipper to McDonald's board or C-suite is effectively zero, whereas you might rise high in a drug gang (promotions might be faster if your bosses have a tendency to get shot or imprisoned!) So you could say that McDonald's has to pay its workers more to offset the smaller future wealth expectations.
It's odd indeed that various self-organized groups of self-interested individuals assembled for their mutual benefit resemble each other in various organization aspects that can best be attributed to human nature.
One could just as easily show a strong resemblance between drug gangs and modern corporate industry, or between medieval European feudalism and modern corporate industry.
One could just as easily show a strong resemblance between drug gangs and modern corporate industry, or between medieval European feudalism and modern corporate industry.
The data of people taking longer to reach professorship should have included the average age of retirement of professors over the same period, which I would expect to also have shifted during this interval (and roughly by the same amount, as I know it did in the Netherlands). It explains why there are relatively fewer open positions for people to transition into, simply because the current cohort of professors isn't retiring. Not as fancy as a comparison to drug dealers, unfortunately.
5 years ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9950179
[deleted]
[deleted]
> So what you have is an increasing number of PhD graduates arriving every year into the market hoping to secure a permanent position as a professor and enjoying freedom and – reasonably – high salaries, a bit like the rank-and-file drug dealer hoping to become a drug lord.
This argument is supposed by around 50% increase in PhD graduates in last 10 years
It's a weak argument.
I see many students joining a PhD program with strong inclination to get industry research jobs. Only a tiny fraction actually wants and aligns their work toward a long term academic position.
This argument is supposed by around 50% increase in PhD graduates in last 10 years
It's a weak argument.
I see many students joining a PhD program with strong inclination to get industry research jobs. Only a tiny fraction actually wants and aligns their work toward a long term academic position.
[deleted]
Subsequently, many people have written silly articles like this one saying that some conventional organization is like a drug gangs because it has these totally normal features. But we knew that already -- that grad students get paid less than full professors is hardly news. The inclusion of drug gangs just produces a snappy headline and reduces understanding.