I fell out of love with academia(math.columbia.edu)
math.columbia.edu
I fell out of love with academia
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=13907
55 comments
This is a very balanced opinion. I will add a more radical tone: if you pursue your true intellectual dreams in academia you will surely find all kinds of obstacles and probably fail.
Peter Higgs (of the namesake Boson fame): "I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system" [1].
I entered academia later on in life to pursue a dream that I had when I was 21 and put off for too long. I get to work on what I think are the hardest problems in TCS/QIS, bar none, and that often feels incredible. But academia is just so damned rough with no two way around it. It crushes brilliant people who think slow and don't chase grants. While rewarding people who gleefully call science 'pain'. And worse still, the rewards are quite meager.
Easily the brightest mind I know (who is dutifully in the 'pain' camp) doesn't conform to the performative aspects of academia and is worse off for it, despite their bottomless capability and tenacity. The rope is so tight and it regularly feels like walking it is harder than the halting problem.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-...
(was going to post this on my main, but, well, my handle says it all)
I entered academia later on in life to pursue a dream that I had when I was 21 and put off for too long. I get to work on what I think are the hardest problems in TCS/QIS, bar none, and that often feels incredible. But academia is just so damned rough with no two way around it. It crushes brilliant people who think slow and don't chase grants. While rewarding people who gleefully call science 'pain'. And worse still, the rewards are quite meager.
Easily the brightest mind I know (who is dutifully in the 'pain' camp) doesn't conform to the performative aspects of academia and is worse off for it, despite their bottomless capability and tenacity. The rope is so tight and it regularly feels like walking it is harder than the halting problem.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-...
(was going to post this on my main, but, well, my handle says it all)
The Peter Higgs example that people throw around is just not a good one.
Higgs was simply among the first to publish an idea that several other people came up with basically simultaneously. He then essentially sat on his hands for the remainder of his academic career, at least scientifically, with a dismal output of less than one not-too-impressive paper per decade - at what was arguably the most exciting time for particle physics.
For all I know he was an admirable teacher and colleague, but I really think that in a world without Peter Higgs we would not have seen a noticeable regression of theoretical particle physics.
There do exist Nobel prize winners from that era who really changed the field, often beyond their prize-winning work: people like Anderson, 't Hooft, Wilson, Weinberg, Gell-Mann, and many others. But Higgs is just not one of them.
Higgs was simply among the first to publish an idea that several other people came up with basically simultaneously. He then essentially sat on his hands for the remainder of his academic career, at least scientifically, with a dismal output of less than one not-too-impressive paper per decade - at what was arguably the most exciting time for particle physics.
For all I know he was an admirable teacher and colleague, but I really think that in a world without Peter Higgs we would not have seen a noticeable regression of theoretical particle physics.
There do exist Nobel prize winners from that era who really changed the field, often beyond their prize-winning work: people like Anderson, 't Hooft, Wilson, Weinberg, Gell-Mann, and many others. But Higgs is just not one of them.
Indeed. In interviews he has even boasted with his abysmal academic output (sorry, no link, just a vague memory). It's like 10 papers in total. I feel like he's the most overrated scientist of all time.
Maybe he could be just underrated is you change the evaluation metrics from quantity to quality?
Not really, see the comment I was replying to for details.
Fair enough. I could have picked something better than Higgs quote, it just felt evocative off the cuff.
Hopefully, that doesn't somehow minimize the overall message I was trying to make.
Hopefully, that doesn't somehow minimize the overall message I was trying to make.
I think we need more people like her to speak out about their experiences. And it doesn’t even matter whether it’s academia or tech or anything else. That’s the only way to try to overcome and recognize „survivorship bias“.
There are billions of people who are not „successful“ in a societally acceptable way. Being „unsuccessful“ is the norm and „success“ is the exception.
There are billions of people who are not „successful“ in a societally acceptable way. Being „unsuccessful“ is the norm and „success“ is the exception.
The scope of the problem is such that speaking out won't fix it. Just like the string stuff in particle physics, only an external force (funding agencies) can fix the problem. Decades of this starus quo has proven to me scientists absolutely cannot fix this themselves while they live under this system.
So, the reforms to the university system from the 90's on were supposed to 'normalize' university employment and organization, so researchers would get the kind of contracts other workers get, departments would be subjected to constraints normal organizations are subjected to, and universities would operate like normal midsize-large businesses.
Unsurprisingly, since researchers are in the position of the 'workers' here, they get exploited to hell, and they hate it. Unsurprisingly, since departments are in the position of the middle managers here, they become populated with jaded ladder-climbers who have totally forgotten why they got into science to start with. Unsurprisingly, because university admins are in the position of CEOs here, they become staffed by MBA types, with all the typical 'we're in the money business' insanity, so they start pushing completely perverse and counterproductive incentives down the chain.
This is not a university problem: this is a social problem. Just look at Boeing. We've created a 'normal' for organizations that drives everybody insane and produces mostly hot garbage.
Unsurprisingly, since researchers are in the position of the 'workers' here, they get exploited to hell, and they hate it. Unsurprisingly, since departments are in the position of the middle managers here, they become populated with jaded ladder-climbers who have totally forgotten why they got into science to start with. Unsurprisingly, because university admins are in the position of CEOs here, they become staffed by MBA types, with all the typical 'we're in the money business' insanity, so they start pushing completely perverse and counterproductive incentives down the chain.
This is not a university problem: this is a social problem. Just look at Boeing. We've created a 'normal' for organizations that drives everybody insane and produces mostly hot garbage.
[deleted]
Universal shades-of-capitalism and institutions built around "efficiency" and opaque labor/outsourcing practices are revealing themselves to be as much a weapon of human self-destruction as carbon-emitting energy generation and, uhh, nukes.
Yes that sounds hyperbolic to me as well, but maybe it's true anyway?
Yes that sounds hyperbolic to me as well, but maybe it's true anyway?
[deleted]
I did a PhD in physics in the late 90s and loved the research and the teaching.
I was also constantly in conflict with some senior staff who had a medieval approch to academia.
I gave a hard stare at my life and realized that with my character I would either go for their positions to change things, among drama and politics, or I must switch to industry.
I switched to industry for 10x the salary, the comfort of not fighting for pennies when it comes to budgeting and basically the same management pyramid. I do not regret it, except that I miss research and teaching very much and will someday be back pro bono.
Like someone said on a comment, people do not like academia itself but what academia provides you. This is very true.
I was also constantly in conflict with some senior staff who had a medieval approch to academia.
I gave a hard stare at my life and realized that with my character I would either go for their positions to change things, among drama and politics, or I must switch to industry.
I switched to industry for 10x the salary, the comfort of not fighting for pennies when it comes to budgeting and basically the same management pyramid. I do not regret it, except that I miss research and teaching very much and will someday be back pro bono.
Like someone said on a comment, people do not like academia itself but what academia provides you. This is very true.
Not exact quote, but
>science is about writing papers
Academic output measured by publising volume
People optimise for publishing volume, sacrificing quality
No wonder why we have junk science, citation circle jerk and wheel reinvention.
Imagine measuring dev productivity by commit volume.
Also a good vid on the topic: https://youtu.be/sQhAbwW9-7Q?si=QAkjntycVroY9XS6
>science is about writing papers
Academic output measured by publising volume
People optimise for publishing volume, sacrificing quality
No wonder why we have junk science, citation circle jerk and wheel reinvention.
Imagine measuring dev productivity by commit volume.
Also a good vid on the topic: https://youtu.be/sQhAbwW9-7Q?si=QAkjntycVroY9XS6
Hossenfelder is making a career out of her YouTube videos?
It's not just a hobby / side gig?
She's not a professor or lecturer anywhere? I'm surprised her YT videos would be a more lucrative job than teaching.
What happens to professors who can't get grants? Even in less expensive theoretical fields? (I don't know how much money she needed for experimentation for the mentioned wok.) Is not getting grants why she couldn't get promoted past postdoc?
Wow, she says she has 12 employees for her YouTube channel! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39948366
She's not a professor or lecturer anywhere? I'm surprised her YT videos would be a more lucrative job than teaching.
What happens to professors who can't get grants? Even in less expensive theoretical fields? (I don't know how much money she needed for experimentation for the mentioned wok.) Is not getting grants why she couldn't get promoted past postdoc?
Wow, she says she has 12 employees for her YouTube channel! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39948366
If you're a professor or a lecturer, you don't have time to make YouTube videos that are any good. You're too busy writing grant applications, serving on university committees, refereeing papers for free that the publishers are making a 35-percent profit margin on once they are published, advising students, writing letters of recommendation, teaching, grading (especially if your teaching load is on the high end at a university where you don't get teaching assistants easily), and if you manage, then also getting research done.
That's not true at all. Many, many professors have time to write books, launch startups, and yes, run YouTube channels.
And the topic here is Hossenfelder, whose videos are almost entirely just standing and talking at the camera. These aren't Veritasium level production and frequency.
And the topic here is Hossenfelder, whose videos are almost entirely just standing and talking at the camera. These aren't Veritasium level production and frequency.
Admittedly, there are exceptions, but the general picture is you're overworked, underpaid, and barely hanging on until (and if!) you get tenure. Even after tenure, you need to work hard to be promoted to full professor.
In many disciplines, books are part of your research output. In others, it's something that you usually do once you are tenured and want to show broader impact for your promotion to full or when you are already promoted to full.
Out of curiosity, who are professors on YouTube that you have come across?
In many disciplines, books are part of your research output. In others, it's something that you usually do once you are tenured and want to show broader impact for your promotion to full or when you are already promoted to full.
Out of curiosity, who are professors on YouTube that you have come across?
[deleted]
HN ouroborous
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39943464
[deleted]
> The real problem I had, I think, is that I was bad at lying to myself.
Or perhaps dr. Hossenfelder's grant proposal was simply bad and the ideas proposed clearly made no sense. Who knows?
It might be hard to judge for the HN crowd, but I just would like to ask why everybody is so keen on trusting the opinions of a contrarian youtuber and blogger instead of, say, anyone with at least a somewhat respectable academic career?
Or perhaps dr. Hossenfelder's grant proposal was simply bad and the ideas proposed clearly made no sense. Who knows?
It might be hard to judge for the HN crowd, but I just would like to ask why everybody is so keen on trusting the opinions of a contrarian youtuber and blogger instead of, say, anyone with at least a somewhat respectable academic career?
There's research showing that, at least as late as several years ago, turnover in academics was increasing (in the sense that the average/median length of time in academics was decreasing), and probability of exiting academics was uncorrelated with measures of research quality.
So it's not just Dr. Hossenfelder.
I think there's a lot of variability in experiences. If you are in a supportive environment and integrated well into "the system" and then move into another supportive environment, I can't exactly say things go effortlessly, but you're more likely to have a good experience. If anything isn't lined up perfectly, you're more likely to have a hellish experience.
I was a tenured professor, left my position for a variety of reasons, and got another position in (in a university) elsewhere and I wrestle with whether or not I'm doing the right thing every day.
The basic problem is people are expected to bring in money to universities first and foremost, and be famous second, with a pool of money coming from the federal government, that isn't big enough to support everyone who wants to do research and can do it well. On top of this is how fame and monies are allocated: based on popularity essentially. So what gets funded is popular, fame is due to what's popular, etc. It sounds a little edgelord but I mean that in the strictest possible sociology of science way. So to convince the right people, you need to do research that everyone agrees on, and that is likely to be uninteresting in some sense etc. What doesn't work now is someone not bringing in money, who says "hey, how about we try something new that we don't know about?" You're actively punished for doing something off-trend.
My guess is it varies by field but currently academics is a disaster in my opinion. It's remarkable to me actually to hear someone like Dr. Hossenfelder say the exact same things that I think and hear others complaining about every single day, in a completely absolutely different field. If you don't believe me or Dr. Hossenfelder, look at Peter Higgs, or Katalin Karikó. For every one of these stories there's hundreds or thousands you don't hear about because the absurdity of it just doesn't become quite that clear.
So it's not just Dr. Hossenfelder.
I think there's a lot of variability in experiences. If you are in a supportive environment and integrated well into "the system" and then move into another supportive environment, I can't exactly say things go effortlessly, but you're more likely to have a good experience. If anything isn't lined up perfectly, you're more likely to have a hellish experience.
I was a tenured professor, left my position for a variety of reasons, and got another position in (in a university) elsewhere and I wrestle with whether or not I'm doing the right thing every day.
The basic problem is people are expected to bring in money to universities first and foremost, and be famous second, with a pool of money coming from the federal government, that isn't big enough to support everyone who wants to do research and can do it well. On top of this is how fame and monies are allocated: based on popularity essentially. So what gets funded is popular, fame is due to what's popular, etc. It sounds a little edgelord but I mean that in the strictest possible sociology of science way. So to convince the right people, you need to do research that everyone agrees on, and that is likely to be uninteresting in some sense etc. What doesn't work now is someone not bringing in money, who says "hey, how about we try something new that we don't know about?" You're actively punished for doing something off-trend.
My guess is it varies by field but currently academics is a disaster in my opinion. It's remarkable to me actually to hear someone like Dr. Hossenfelder say the exact same things that I think and hear others complaining about every single day, in a completely absolutely different field. If you don't believe me or Dr. Hossenfelder, look at Peter Higgs, or Katalin Karikó. For every one of these stories there's hundreds or thousands you don't hear about because the absurdity of it just doesn't become quite that clear.
"If anything isn't lined up perfectly, you're more likely to have a hellish experience"... imagine you start working in a group led by someone with preferences for hiring like-minded people or other biases... in 10 years of career I have seen biases involving religion, family, region...
Personal anecdata with a decently large sample size of my friend circle: I can introduce you to low double-digit number of promising and passionate scientists who didn't make it 5 years past their phd for the exact reasons that Dr. Hossenfelder points out. And they can all say the same thing about their friend-circles.
They're not the HN crowd...
They're not the HN crowd...
> anyone with at least a somewhat respectable academic career
I mean she does have that.
I mean she does have that.
I am not so sure about that. She got her PhD in 2003 and is somehow still a "postdoctoral researcher" [0]. In Europe anyone with that academic age is normally a full professor, perhaps with some country-specific exceptions for some lesser gods (like a senior lecturer in the UK).
[0] https://www.mcmp.philosophie.uni-muenchen.de/people/faculty/...
[0] https://www.mcmp.philosophie.uni-muenchen.de/people/faculty/...
>Sabine Hossenfelder is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies.
>Her research is looking for the best way to search for experimental evidence of quantum gravity. https://www.cas.lmu.de/en/people-at-cas/details/sabine-hosse...
>Her research is looking for the best way to search for experimental evidence of quantum gravity. https://www.cas.lmu.de/en/people-at-cas/details/sabine-hosse...
This is wrong. She got her PhD in 2003 and got a faculty position in 2009 in Sweden. She moved back to Germany for family reasons.
she got that grant no? did i misread the article
she got grants for other stuff, but not the specific topic that she was interested in.
Tech companies and the corporate and startup world in general have proven to be more dynamic.
If you are smart, driven, and have a 'get sh!t done' personality, are you going to waste your time with the kind of rules obsessed tattle-tale types that predominate in academia? In the real world, if you create something awesome, you get paid, and you get to do what you love. In academia, you get rewarded for bullsh*t that no one is going to bother to replicate and spend your time filling out paperwork (grants). Choose your own adventure.
> In the real world, if you create something awesome, you get paid, and you get to do what you love.
You and I live in very different "real worlds" and I feel like my "real world" is well above average.
You and I live in very different "real worlds" and I feel like my "real world" is well above average.
Nobody pays you in the corporate or startup world if what you do isn’t monetizable, preferably in the short term. And the measure of “awesome” there is how much and how quickly it can be monetized. It seems you haven’t understood the purpose of academia.
Bell Labs is not the corporate or startup world, and it was a rather exceptional phenomenon. It also hasn’t produced much significant work anymore in the last twenty years or so.
And Bell Labs existed mainly because of the taxation system of US. They needed to do R&D spend to use as a tax write-off. That's why the most productive years of American tech were the years with highest rates of taxation.
The high energy fundamental physics startup scene isn't as dynamic as you are thinking.
Sounds just like tech companies tbh.
This is overly cynical and overly reductive.
Choose your own adventure but please don't ask me to pay your academia bills ;_;
Sorry but most start ups are completely dependent on VC funding. CEOs ask for money for VCs, get enough results to ask for next round of funding and so on.
Start up and academia both require money from external sources that are not directly the consumers.
Start up and academia both require money from external sources that are not directly the consumers.
I've often thought about what a solution to this looks like. The best I've been able to find is something like the genius stipend.
If you meet a certain IQ cutoff, you can get free money from the government, enough to make as much as the average citizen. There's no direction, or additional hoops to jump through, no milestones, no stakeholders, no grants, no check-ins, no demos. The only condition is that all of the intellectual property you produce on the stipend is public domain.
Depending on the cutoff this could cost less than a stealth bomber per year. And it seems like it would easily be among the government programs with the highest return on investment. Unfortunately, smart folks aren't numerous enough to be a voting block, and so promising them money at other people's expense isn't a great political strategy.
If you meet a certain IQ cutoff, you can get free money from the government, enough to make as much as the average citizen. There's no direction, or additional hoops to jump through, no milestones, no stakeholders, no grants, no check-ins, no demos. The only condition is that all of the intellectual property you produce on the stipend is public domain.
Depending on the cutoff this could cost less than a stealth bomber per year. And it seems like it would easily be among the government programs with the highest return on investment. Unfortunately, smart folks aren't numerous enough to be a voting block, and so promising them money at other people's expense isn't a great political strategy.
Do we have any evidence that geniuses (as measured on an IQ test) excel at making good decisions in the real world, or are especially productive in any useful way?
Yes, there is a positive correlation between life outcomes that a culture values and the score on IQ tests designed by that culture. This has been true for every culture so far.
But I think that's besides the point. If we want more from the scientific community we need to think about who is likely to produce scientific breakthroughs, and who gets funding in practice.
High IQ is a wide net, but it supersets the people who are capable of making advancements in something like theoretical physics. And it's such a small pool that the non-productive geniuses are a drop in the bucket for a government payroll. The flip side is someone capable of making progress in this field can just do so, they don't need to play the academic funding game. That seems to be the problem Sabine ran into. Fortunately, she was able to avoid the waste work by lecturing about her interests to a general audience.
But I think that's besides the point. If we want more from the scientific community we need to think about who is likely to produce scientific breakthroughs, and who gets funding in practice.
High IQ is a wide net, but it supersets the people who are capable of making advancements in something like theoretical physics. And it's such a small pool that the non-productive geniuses are a drop in the bucket for a government payroll. The flip side is someone capable of making progress in this field can just do so, they don't need to play the academic funding game. That seems to be the problem Sabine ran into. Fortunately, she was able to avoid the waste work by lecturing about her interests to a general audience.
Your first paragraph doesn't even begin to address my question.
When I was an undergrad struggling with physics classes myself, I might have worshipped high IQs like you're doing.
Now that I've been in the real world and known many "geniuses" - IQ is just one factor, and far from the most important, in determining who does anything worthwhile. In my experience, the only thing you can confidently say about super math/physics geniuses is that they have "different" social skills, and might be low in empathy.
When I was an undergrad struggling with physics classes myself, I might have worshipped high IQs like you're doing.
Now that I've been in the real world and known many "geniuses" - IQ is just one factor, and far from the most important, in determining who does anything worthwhile. In my experience, the only thing you can confidently say about super math/physics geniuses is that they have "different" social skills, and might be low in empathy.
I know a lot of extremely high IQ people who are far less productive than lower IQ people with other talents and ethic.
Unless your idea is reducing to UBI, it's not well-targeted.
Unless your idea is reducing to UBI, it's not well-targeted.
> I know a lot of extremely high IQ people who are far less productive than lower IQ people with other talents and ethic.
Interesting, the dumbest people I know ended up being precisely where I thought they'd always be in life, and its not very high. I wonder who's experience matters more, yours, or mine.
Interesting, the dumbest people I know ended up being precisely where I thought they'd always be in life, and its not very high. I wonder who's experience matters more, yours, or mine.
You’re not contradicting parent. You’re just talking about the other tail of the distribution.
> This has been true for every culture so far.
So we tested this with Ancient Egyptians, hunter-gatherers from iron age Siberia, 19th c Chicago factory workers and 1940s Basques, and found out that whatever IQ tests they came up with they were always useful metrics for life outcomes. Personally I especially love Ancient Egyptian IQ tests.
So we tested this with Ancient Egyptians, hunter-gatherers from iron age Siberia, 19th c Chicago factory workers and 1940s Basques, and found out that whatever IQ tests they came up with they were always useful metrics for life outcomes. Personally I especially love Ancient Egyptian IQ tests.
Oh man, maybe that’s what the reincarnation check from OMON-Ra was
You and the other genius here keep moving the goalpost. (I wonder why.)
The question was whether GENIUSES can be expected to contribute so much that they shouldn't have to work, not whether "smarter is often good." Yes, IQ of 115 is probably more successful than 85, but neither is GENIUS, therefore not relevant to the question.
The question was whether GENIUSES can be expected to contribute so much that they shouldn't have to work, not whether "smarter is often good." Yes, IQ of 115 is probably more successful than 85, but neither is GENIUS, therefore not relevant to the question.
> Yes, there is a positive correlation between life outcomes that a culture values and the score on IQ tests designed by that culture.
There are also positive correlations between high focus and effort regardless of IQ. Not to mention luck which plays perhaps the biggest factor in life outcomes far beyond IQ, effort, and focus.
There are also positive correlations between high focus and effort regardless of IQ. Not to mention luck which plays perhaps the biggest factor in life outcomes far beyond IQ, effort, and focus.
They would probably all agree with the statement that writing successful grants and accomplishing what they want to accomplish are neither aligned nor orthogonal, but rather in tension, if not outright opposed.