I was denied tenure – how do I cope?(nature.com)
nature.com
I was denied tenure – how do I cope?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01694-1
89 comments
To be fair people in the private sector typically make more money at least and have better work-related perks. Academia advertises mostly 1. you research stuff you find interesting and 2. you will get job security some point after a couple of postdocs. Currently neither 1 nor 2 apply for the vast majority of academic work.
From a somewhat outside perspective, I used to think that being a tenured professor at one of a relative handful of top institutions would be a pretty nice gig overall with at least decent pay and benefits. Over time, I came to think I probably wouldn't have liked it a lot even given that very optimistic hypothetical situation.
> Academia advertises mostly 1. you research stuff you find interesting and 2. you will get job security some point after a couple of postdocs.
Also pensions. Often, if you start early, you can retire with a full pension at 55 or so.
Also pensions. Often, if you start early, you can retire with a full pension at 55 or so.
I don't think the market for ecologists in the private sector is super hot right now.
But even then, I know plenty of researchers who would rather earn half their salary than dealing with the private sector's BS: bad science practices, endless meetings, "Powerpoint or it didn't happen", zero freedom to experiment, having to constantly "dumb it down" to your manager's manager, draconian publication guidelines, "are you sure we can't patent it?", and the list goes on.
Research is only a hobby if you don't care about the impact and quality of your work. I'm sure the scientists who drafted the 1982 Exxon Internal Report on Global Temperatures [1] got paid very well for their report to be buried for 30+ years, but I would rather take a lower salary and make sure the fruits of my work actually get out there.
[1] https://xkcd.com/2500/
But even then, I know plenty of researchers who would rather earn half their salary than dealing with the private sector's BS: bad science practices, endless meetings, "Powerpoint or it didn't happen", zero freedom to experiment, having to constantly "dumb it down" to your manager's manager, draconian publication guidelines, "are you sure we can't patent it?", and the list goes on.
Research is only a hobby if you don't care about the impact and quality of your work. I'm sure the scientists who drafted the 1982 Exxon Internal Report on Global Temperatures [1] got paid very well for their report to be buried for 30+ years, but I would rather take a lower salary and make sure the fruits of my work actually get out there.
[1] https://xkcd.com/2500/
> I don't think the market for ecologists in the private sector is super hot right now.
You might be surprised to know that there's a fairly big environmental consulting sector. It's serious stuff. Multi billion dollar construction projects can be derailed by the discovery of e.g. a particular kind of unique beetle.
I don't know what it's like in the US, but I have met some people in the sector in Australia and they do real work, they're ok with it, they do it with integrity - nobody gets asked to "bury" things.
Of course, they DO get asked by their customers what the absolutely cheapest possible way to (legally) solve their problems might be :)
You might be surprised to know that there's a fairly big environmental consulting sector. It's serious stuff. Multi billion dollar construction projects can be derailed by the discovery of e.g. a particular kind of unique beetle.
I don't know what it's like in the US, but I have met some people in the sector in Australia and they do real work, they're ok with it, they do it with integrity - nobody gets asked to "bury" things.
Of course, they DO get asked by their customers what the absolutely cheapest possible way to (legally) solve their problems might be :)
A close relation of mine worked for a decade in the environmental consulting sector. In his case that meant a lot of long working hours and tedious research finding the cheapest possible legal solution.
He was kind of miserable at this job. He wasn't asked to bury things or hide anything, but he had studied environmental engineering because he wanted to make the Earth a better place, not to work out the limit of meeting legal responsibilities. I suspect a lot of his misery would have been mitigated if his employers paid a higher salary, but that's what the market demand was for those skills.
He was kind of miserable at this job. He wasn't asked to bury things or hide anything, but he had studied environmental engineering because he wanted to make the Earth a better place, not to work out the limit of meeting legal responsibilities. I suspect a lot of his misery would have been mitigated if his employers paid a higher salary, but that's what the market demand was for those skills.
> He wasn't asked to bury things or hide anything, but he had studied environmental engineering because he wanted to make the Earth a better place, not to work out the limit of meeting legal responsibilities.
This is an unfortunate reality of much of the private sector, not just environmental engineering. You get into career X in order to [build interesting stuff | solve problems for the world | improve life for your customers], but instead end up in endless discussions with managers and lawyers, deciding what is the bare minimum the team needs to do in order to comply with the exact wording of the contract, while spending the least money.
This is an unfortunate reality of much of the private sector, not just environmental engineering. You get into career X in order to [build interesting stuff | solve problems for the world | improve life for your customers], but instead end up in endless discussions with managers and lawyers, deciding what is the bare minimum the team needs to do in order to comply with the exact wording of the contract, while spending the least money.
Yeah heaps of paperwork folks - not all office work though - there are also plenty of people who just work on the land and do surveys etc.
> But even then, I know plenty of researchers who would rather earn half their salary than dealing with the private sector's BS: bad science practices, endless meetings, "Powerpoint or it didn't happen", zero freedom to experiment, having to constantly "dumb it down" to your manager's manager, draconian publication guidelines, "are you sure we can't patent it?", and the list goes on.
Sure, but I suspect you could find similar complaints from a lot of academics (UK "REF", for example). The UK situation is pretty dire at the moment and is unlikely to improve without the shock of a respected university simply becoming insolvent.
Sure, but I suspect you could find similar complaints from a lot of academics (UK "REF", for example). The UK situation is pretty dire at the moment and is unlikely to improve without the shock of a respected university simply becoming insolvent.
I thought that what OP said described academic life pretty accurately as well! Except dealing with grants, PIs, deans, etc.
Not only that, the CS stuff they teach now is woefully behind the times apart from what you get at a few high profile colleges. Kids coming straight out of college CS courses not knowing GitHub for instance.
Then again some colleges seem to think training folks for the workforce to somehow demean their efforts.
Then again some colleges seem to think training folks for the workforce to somehow demean their efforts.
What particular value is knowing GitHub? Git maybe, but GitHub is just too specific.
Isn't showing students where you can find a boatload of real-life examples of the kinds of things their studying kind of obviously a good idea?
Yes but if you can't find that without some school telling you, you have zero curiosity and dare I say aren't cut out for this industry.
Yeah, just spitballing here but it seems like they could make DAG version control systems a unit of study in an algorithms course.
Yes, students should learn the craft, not the tool. The craft here is understanding how to use a version control system, particularly when working on a team. In a practical sense, this usually means learning to use `git`, but it could also be Mercurial or something, and it certainly doesn't need to be a proprietary front-end.
In a country with free university tuition, I agree.
In a country with paid tuition, universities need to provide education that provides the fastest path to paying off student debt, otherwise they are doing their customers a disservice in life.
Far too many programmers exit from university without the skills that industry needs. If universities are places for free learning that's okay, but if you're paying $$$ for such a degree and been saddled with a mountain of debt then I think you've been robbed.
In a country with paid tuition, universities need to provide education that provides the fastest path to paying off student debt, otherwise they are doing their customers a disservice in life.
Far too many programmers exit from university without the skills that industry needs. If universities are places for free learning that's okay, but if you're paying $$$ for such a degree and been saddled with a mountain of debt then I think you've been robbed.
It's your job as a potential student to determine what kind of education is the right choice for you. Especially if you will be paying for it. And it's the job of guidance counsellors (or whatever you have in previous schools) to help you make an informed choice.
Research universities have theoretically oriented curricula, because that's what they are good at teaching. They also operate from the principle that universities are places of learning, not places of teaching. The curriculum is just the bare minimum, and students are expected to learn more on their own, according to their interests. For some people, this is exactly the right kind of learning environment. Others may prefer educational institutions that are more active in guiding them towards the right path.
Research universities have theoretically oriented curricula, because that's what they are good at teaching. They also operate from the principle that universities are places of learning, not places of teaching. The curriculum is just the bare minimum, and students are expected to learn more on their own, according to their interests. For some people, this is exactly the right kind of learning environment. Others may prefer educational institutions that are more active in guiding them towards the right path.
One could flip your argument on its head and argue that, in countries with free (or subsidized) university tuition, because taxpayers are paying for the tuition, universities should teach things that are demonstrably valuable to provide graduates with a fast path to becoming a productive ($) person in the workforce. If somebody wants to learn "useless" things, they can do so with their own money.
(Not that I disagree with your general thesis though. I just think it applies to free uni tuitions as well...)
(Not that I disagree with your general thesis though. I just think it applies to free uni tuitions as well...)
For scholarships yes, but not for mass free or cheap subsidized tuition (e.g. Germany, Norway, Sweden, Scotland, etc).
Governments everywhere subsidize the arts because a society where people only go in to economically productive careers is culturally barren.
So I don’t think any Government enlightened enough to offer mass free university tuition would be unenlightened enough to see universities as mere training centers for industry, rather than as places of higher education at arm’s length from industry.
Whereas when individuals pay fully for their own tuition then they do need to see degrees as training for industry because they have to pay the money back with interest. Interest accrues with time so they need to be productive as quickly as possible. If universities have their students’ best interests at heart then they need to acknowledge this reality and design courses to give students useful skills that will let them pay the money back ASAP.
Governments everywhere subsidize the arts because a society where people only go in to economically productive careers is culturally barren.
So I don’t think any Government enlightened enough to offer mass free university tuition would be unenlightened enough to see universities as mere training centers for industry, rather than as places of higher education at arm’s length from industry.
Whereas when individuals pay fully for their own tuition then they do need to see degrees as training for industry because they have to pay the money back with interest. Interest accrues with time so they need to be productive as quickly as possible. If universities have their students’ best interests at heart then they need to acknowledge this reality and design courses to give students useful skills that will let them pay the money back ASAP.
Colleges focus on teaching things that require study to learn, things that you won’t really understand without intentionally analyzing them. Algorithms and data structures are great examples. An individual is never going to invent A* on the spot without an education, for example.
Learning how to use the tools of the trade, e.g. OS, IDE, version control, etc, is not something you need to spend $50k/yr to have a Ph. D. Teach you, it’s something you pick up on your own.
A lot of younger adults these days seem to think that college entitles you to a well-paying job, possibly due to the messaging from previous generation(s), but that is not (and never has been) the case.
Learning how to use the tools of the trade, e.g. OS, IDE, version control, etc, is not something you need to spend $50k/yr to have a Ph. D. Teach you, it’s something you pick up on your own.
A lot of younger adults these days seem to think that college entitles you to a well-paying job, possibly due to the messaging from previous generation(s), but that is not (and never has been) the case.
It's true that an individual isn't going to invent A* on the spot. They learn how to use it.
An individual isn't going to invent a VCS either. They learn how to use it.
I'm not seeing the difference here. If somebody needs to use A* search, it's entirely plausible they just pick it up in a couple days on their own without spending 4 years studying a CS degree.
In a sense most knowledge these days are just a youtube video away.
To be fair the world has changed so much in the past ~30 years that I think in general universities should be thinking long and hard what their position in society ought to be going forward. They can't gatekeep knowledge any more, and word has gone out that degrees don't imply employability. Lots of people believe universities are required to learn theoretical knowledge, but I don't see what's special about those over trade skills (other than universities' traditional gatekeeping roles).
I'm pretty sure college degrees did open up a lot of doors in the past than today though. A simple matter of supply and demand I guess.
An individual isn't going to invent a VCS either. They learn how to use it.
I'm not seeing the difference here. If somebody needs to use A* search, it's entirely plausible they just pick it up in a couple days on their own without spending 4 years studying a CS degree.
In a sense most knowledge these days are just a youtube video away.
To be fair the world has changed so much in the past ~30 years that I think in general universities should be thinking long and hard what their position in society ought to be going forward. They can't gatekeep knowledge any more, and word has gone out that degrees don't imply employability. Lots of people believe universities are required to learn theoretical knowledge, but I don't see what's special about those over trade skills (other than universities' traditional gatekeeping roles).
I'm pretty sure college degrees did open up a lot of doors in the past than today though. A simple matter of supply and demand I guess.
[deleted]
> An individual is never going to invent A* on the spot without an education, for example.
What? A* is a brute force solution. Here's a complete description of A*:
A* is a breadth-first search in which we use weighted path length, rather than unweighted path length, to calculate tree depth.
Tons of people will invent it on the spot. The algorithm is just "let's try everything, in order of desirability, until something works".
What? A* is a brute force solution. Here's a complete description of A*:
A* is a breadth-first search in which we use weighted path length, rather than unweighted path length, to calculate tree depth.
Tons of people will invent it on the spot. The algorithm is just "let's try everything, in order of desirability, until something works".
Look brother you’re not winning any points by implying that you’d be the guy to invent A* on the spot. Without formal education you’re almost certainly not even dealing with concepts like breadth-first search, trees, or nodes, so no, a ton of people will not be inventing it on the spot.
Edit: most people don’t even think about recursion as a possibility until taught about it in a formal setting, and even then it’s typically a struggle to understand. Even using a queue, that’s a data structure that a person with a task to do isn’t likely to spend the time to invent on the spot.
Edit: most people don’t even think about recursion as a possibility until taught about it in a formal setting, and even then it’s typically a struggle to understand. Even using a queue, that’s a data structure that a person with a task to do isn’t likely to spend the time to invent on the spot.
> Without formal education you’re almost certainly not even dealing with concepts like breadth-first search, trees, or nodes, so no, a ton of people will not be inventing it on the spot.
If you're not dealing with nodes, you won't be inventing A* on the spot because you don't have a problem to which it can be applied.
But otherwise, it's literally a breadth-first search with the queue replaced by a priority queue.
> Even using a queue, that’s a data structure that a person with a task to do isn’t likely to spend the time to invent on the spot.
A to-do list is as simple as data structures get.
A heap is complex, but if you want to insist on developing everything used by the algorithm from scratch, the person faced with this problem is likely to just use a sorted list.
Try it out. Ask some people how they'd find the shortest path between two points through a weighted graph (use whatever terminology you want); see what they say.
If you're not dealing with nodes, you won't be inventing A* on the spot because you don't have a problem to which it can be applied.
But otherwise, it's literally a breadth-first search with the queue replaced by a priority queue.
> Even using a queue, that’s a data structure that a person with a task to do isn’t likely to spend the time to invent on the spot.
A to-do list is as simple as data structures get.
A heap is complex, but if you want to insist on developing everything used by the algorithm from scratch, the person faced with this problem is likely to just use a sorted list.
Try it out. Ask some people how they'd find the shortest path between two points through a weighted graph (use whatever terminology you want); see what they say.
I agree the vast majority of people aren't going to invent A* on the spot. But I don't understand your emphasis on "formal" education. I'm pretty sure a sufficiently smart high school kid interested in the subject could learn all these topics online in a couple months without enrolling in any college.
It’s been that way forever. In CS most colleges have always been about 2 beats behind current industry.
I frequently recommend MIT's missing semester to students [1]. I agree it sucks they don't teach this material, though to be fair they also neglected it when I was in undergrad a quarter century ago. I remember learning it on my own because I wanted to become better. That autodidact proclivity has served me well over the years.
[1]: https://missing.csail.mit.edu/
[1]: https://missing.csail.mit.edu/
You could probably argue that there would be a benefit to a semester or two of basic training/bootcamp for theory-heavy engineering curricula (not just CS) especially for students who are going in essentially cold. Probably CS is a particularly extreme example in that there's no formal expectation that an incoming freshman has done any real programming. Though even in something like mechanical engineering it's not like students have worked on cars or been in a machine shop.
Are you kidding? Practical training isn't exclusively the domain of "a few high profile colleges." In fact, the more high profile your college, the less likely it is that you'll get practical training. I refuse to believe that there are many schools teaching CS that don't even cover the basics like how to commit something to git.
You also make it sound like Github (which is just a commercial Git hosting service) is advanced "CS stuff" that you can't grasp without having this knowledge handed to you at an elite school. Most professionals and students of CS literally learn most or all of it in their spare time.
You also make it sound like Github (which is just a commercial Git hosting service) is advanced "CS stuff" that you can't grasp without having this knowledge handed to you at an elite school. Most professionals and students of CS literally learn most or all of it in their spare time.
If you think CS is bad just wait until you see how bad Software Engineering programs are. Fresh graduates cannot explain the halting problem, the Church–Turing thesis, the maximum flow problem... some can't even formally demonstrate that a function's precondition implies its post-conditions!
Fine, ask any software engineer employed in a sillicon valley startup or any fortune 500 company if they ever required to explain or use these concepts...
I don't think it's such a crazy idea to suggest that if someone wants to get a highly-paid job as a Software Engineer then perhaps they should get a Software Engineer degree from the Software Engineering department.
Or put differently: ask any computer science professor employed at a University if they ever required to explain or use CI/CD, or ask Geoffrey Hinton how different his work on backpropagation algorithms would have been if he had had AWS.
Or put differently: ask any computer science professor employed at a University if they ever required to explain or use CI/CD, or ask Geoffrey Hinton how different his work on backpropagation algorithms would have been if he had had AWS.
The point of teaching cool theory to undergrads is not to enable them to explain it. Professors study for PhDs to prepare to explain it. The point of teaching theory to undergrads is so that they are aware of the implications of the theories, and so they don't waste time on projects that are obviously doomed to fail.
> Kids coming straight out of college CS courses not knowing GitHub for instance.
That’s… not really surprising? Why would a CS course teach github? Hell I’d be surprised if a CS course taught git, that’s more of a CE subject, and not an amazing one either.
That’s… not really surprising? Why would a CS course teach github? Hell I’d be surprised if a CS course taught git, that’s more of a CE subject, and not an amazing one either.
This was about a failure mode in the old "guild model". That your career may fail due to guild politics, regardless of performance. If universities truly move to the "Uber model", this particular issue will go away.
If career is replace by gigs, politics wouldn't go away, it would just shift to affecting your gigs.
Unfortunately there's lots of types of work that are only available in academics. E.g. functional programming and most CS research.
Somewhat related: generally, teaching professors are considered "second class citizens" compared to research professors. This person was all about their research and their lab, and getting tenure on that basis. Yet the bread and butter of universities are their undergraduate students, and you don't need a research lab to teach at that level.
I would like to see universities prioritize undergraduate teaching. Stop abusing adjuncts and hire professors with a long-term interest in the success of the university's undergraduate programs.
I would like to see universities prioritize undergraduate teaching. Stop abusing adjuncts and hire professors with a long-term interest in the success of the university's undergraduate programs.
I agree with stop abusing adjuncts. But research is one of the purposes of a university. For instance historically a lot of important improvements to farming and public health emanated from academic research.
>Yet the bread and butter of universities are their undergraduate students,
I'm not sure that's actually true. It's not financially--at least in the short term.
There are more smallish teaching-oriented liberal arts colleges/universities but most of the big engineering/science schools probably regard undergrads as largely necessary annoyances if the powers that be were being honest.
For better or worse, the overall trend is for a lot of the smaller liberal arts colleges to be going out of business as home economics/finishing schools really aren't especially useful any longer.
I'm not sure that's actually true. It's not financially--at least in the short term.
There are more smallish teaching-oriented liberal arts colleges/universities but most of the big engineering/science schools probably regard undergrads as largely necessary annoyances if the powers that be were being honest.
For better or worse, the overall trend is for a lot of the smaller liberal arts colleges to be going out of business as home economics/finishing schools really aren't especially useful any longer.
>big engineering/science schools probably regard undergrads as largely necessary annoyances
I recall one definition of a school including elementary right up to University being an institution that passed knowledge from one generation to the next. The suggestion that students are considered an 'annoyance' really is quite galling in itself. It defeats the entire purpose of the institutions and questions why we justify giving them tax money.
I recall one definition of a school including elementary right up to University being an institution that passed knowledge from one generation to the next. The suggestion that students are considered an 'annoyance' really is quite galling in itself. It defeats the entire purpose of the institutions and questions why we justify giving them tax money.
> For better or worse, the overall trend is for a lot of the smaller liberal arts colleges to be going out of business as home economics/finishing schools really aren't especially useful any longer.
I doubt this. Having an undergraduate degree vice not is a major social status symbol, at least in the US. Someone with a degree from a liberal arts school is much more hirable/datable etc than someone without.
I doubt this. Having an undergraduate degree vice not is a major social status symbol, at least in the US. Someone with a degree from a liberal arts school is much more hirable/datable etc than someone without.
Not making a judgment. Just an observation that a lot of smaller liberal arts colleges have been closing.
Whether or not hiring college grads is overall a good heuristic, it's probably just one that companies apply for a bunch of reasons--whether those reasons are generally valid or not.
Whether or not hiring college grads is overall a good heuristic, it's probably just one that companies apply for a bunch of reasons--whether those reasons are generally valid or not.
I'm with you, and it's interesting to hear they have been closing. I'm curious how the societal changes will shape out if this is true and continues. My observation is that a significant portion of the middle class people I know have liberal arts degrees, or otherwise schools from non-research universities. They date or are married exclusively to other people with degrees, and work at jobs that wouldn't have hired them without degrees. So, those expectations would have to change to, or something similar.
In general, I imagine that the big state university systems are the bulk of the grads anyway though I'd have to look at the actual numbers. But, yes, a college degree is a basic heuristic in a lot of cases. There are exceptions but it's often a default.
I think that if we focus on properly funded public higher education, then it could have a more openly defined mission and the private schools could go back to being mostly seminaries, or just do whatever they want.
In the US, there is already a wide range of state schools, community colleges, and trade-oriented educational options. (And private universities largely do what they want within legal and financial limits anyway.) I suppose you can always argue that higher ed/trade-oriented training should have even less expensive options but it's mostly private ed in majors that don't really translate to job opportunities that lead to complaints about the price tag.
There's a long-standing academic tradition of teaching researchers, and frankly that makes a lot of sense and is a really important part of scientific education.
Otherwise scientific education becomes like school teaching, and you end up learning that science is the things that your book says are true.
Rather, science is the living of body of knowledge based on experiment and logical thinking. It's a very subtle difference that I don't think can be taught if you're not an active researcher, it's not sufficient to state that in the abstract.
Otherwise scientific education becomes like school teaching, and you end up learning that science is the things that your book says are true.
Rather, science is the living of body of knowledge based on experiment and logical thinking. It's a very subtle difference that I don't think can be taught if you're not an active researcher, it's not sufficient to state that in the abstract.
> "yet the bread and butter of universities are their undergraduate students..."
I think this really depends on which universities you look at. Top of the field research universities.... Undergraduates are just a small piece of the overall pie, research (impact, etc) and grant writing are the primary factors in determining who gets tenure (and of course department politics).
Smaller universities, or less research focused universities I can imagine your teaching starts to take on more weight... But really, it all comes down to cost-benefit analysis between the university choosing you vs someone else. Especially when it comes to tenure which is like a long term investment. And there are only so many tenure spots in each department, sometimes it's more beneficial to leave them open than to fill them... Waiting to poach or acquire the next big name. Prestige brings in research money, investment money, students (grad and undergrad). So unfortunately, it's not really the meritocracy it is held up as.
I think this really depends on which universities you look at. Top of the field research universities.... Undergraduates are just a small piece of the overall pie, research (impact, etc) and grant writing are the primary factors in determining who gets tenure (and of course department politics).
Smaller universities, or less research focused universities I can imagine your teaching starts to take on more weight... But really, it all comes down to cost-benefit analysis between the university choosing you vs someone else. Especially when it comes to tenure which is like a long term investment. And there are only so many tenure spots in each department, sometimes it's more beneficial to leave them open than to fill them... Waiting to poach or acquire the next big name. Prestige brings in research money, investment money, students (grad and undergrad). So unfortunately, it's not really the meritocracy it is held up as.
It's a simple matter of incentives. The government pays you if your researchers are good, and some private entities may also contribute. Nobody is willing to pay more if your teachers are good. And then there is the reputational effect. Graduates from prestigious research universities are in high demand, while nobody cares much if your teachers are good.
Easy. I didn't even get an academic position. I quit trying in academia and became a wildlife photographer. That's not because making it in academia wasn't theoretically possible, but because sometimes it's just not worth it.
If you're smart enough to do research at an academic level, go off the beaten track: start some courses on your subject on Udemy, save up some money while you're still IN academia, and when get out the first chance you get and do something else.
Every time you feel like the system burns you to the ground, rise like the phoenix and remake yourself. If something isn't working for you, discard it and push hard to fight against it.
If you're smart enough to do research at an academic level, go off the beaten track: start some courses on your subject on Udemy, save up some money while you're still IN academia, and when get out the first chance you get and do something else.
Every time you feel like the system burns you to the ground, rise like the phoenix and remake yourself. If something isn't working for you, discard it and push hard to fight against it.
My condolences, but it is in fact entirely normal in a modern market economy that you don't get offered a minimum-responsibility cushy sinecure for life.
https://www.betonit.ai/p/tenure-is-a-total-scam
https://www.betonit.ai/p/tenure-is-a-total-scam
As an outsider, the thing I've noticed is that it appears the only way to nearly guarantee tenure is to bring in money. The author mentions applying for grants, but does not mention getting any.
Not to say it's fair or anything, but it seems like this is the way it is at least at some institutions.
Not to say it's fair or anything, but it seems like this is the way it is at least at some institutions.
Bonus: If news reports are to be believed, bringing in money makes some university officials look the other way on a lot of misconduct.
Its hard to relate to a lifetime employment 'tenure' when us in the private sector have to deal with leet code interviews and other countless indignities in the knife fight employment cycle every 1-3 years for the rest of our careers.. if we are lucky
Is this 1-3 year employment cycle due to working at startups and they're going out of business, or is this jumping ship for a pay raise?
If it's the latter, you don't have to switch jobs every 1-3 years, you can find a stable company and stick with them for the long haul. You may not get paid as well as the job hoppers, but you're probably making considerably more money then you would in academia, even tenured.
If it's the latter, you don't have to switch jobs every 1-3 years, you can find a stable company and stick with them for the long haul. You may not get paid as well as the job hoppers, but you're probably making considerably more money then you would in academia, even tenured.
> you can find a stable company and stick with them for the long haul.
Many "stable" companies are still laying people off. There aren't as many companies one can "stick with for the long haul" as there used to be.
Many "stable" companies are still laying people off. There aren't as many companies one can "stick with for the long haul" as there used to be.
Skip the LeetCode interviews/stop doing them and eventually they will go away
But they will probably come up with something else sadly
But they will probably come up with something else sadly
> Skip the LeetCode interviews/stop doing them and eventually they will go away
That is not an option in this environment; too many companies use that as the gatekeeper. From a company's point of view, if someone refuses to take the test, that's okay because there are hundreds of other applications who will gladly do it.
That is not an option in this environment; too many companies use that as the gatekeeper. From a company's point of view, if someone refuses to take the test, that's okay because there are hundreds of other applications who will gladly do it.
I have managed to avoid them in my 20 years in industry. I once interviewed and they wanted me to do a take home coding exercise to build a CI/CD system in Python (with a scheduler). No one does that - we use GitLab, Bamboo, Jenkins, etc.
Not a LeetCode example but my point is the coding exercises are silly.
(Plus Activision was apparently using Perforce at the time and not git)
Not a LeetCode example but my point is the coding exercises are silly.
(Plus Activision was apparently using Perforce at the time and not git)
Think about the grad students. They're in an even shittier situation. At least the prof gets to keep their PhD and publications. Focus on getting the students transferred into decent situations. Remember to give them glowing recommendations.
The professors who'd look after students' development and welfare, even after the professor themself got scrod... are the people a university should most want to have as professors.
"denied" tenure is weird phrasing: I assume you don't have the right to tenure, similarly to us not having a right to a promotion or a job.
I am for fighting/hustling this if this is doable
I am for fighting/hustling this if this is doable
Denied is just the inverse of “granted” which is the standard way to say a tenure application was accepted
It's the common vernacular in academia and has been for centuries
> How do I cope?
Don't be like Amy Bishop.[1] She was a neurobiologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who didn't get tenure and, during the middle of a meeting, pulled out a gun and shot dead several of her colleagues, some of whom were on the committee that denied application.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/02/11/a-loaded-gun
Don't be like Amy Bishop.[1] She was a neurobiologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who didn't get tenure and, during the middle of a meeting, pulled out a gun and shot dead several of her colleagues, some of whom were on the committee that denied application.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/02/11/a-loaded-gun
God the entitlement of academia is insane. Living life in an environment where every next step is somehow a given breeds such a strange culture of childishness. Almost spent my whole life in it, so glad I got out. People hate on the private sector but at least it feels connected to reality on a much more basic level.
If the end goal is a lifetime job with excellent pay and benefits, why not go through the struggle?
"I was denied tenure – how do I cope?"
Easy. Just understand that most things in life resemble "Trip to Jerusalem" game.
Easy. Just understand that most things in life resemble "Trip to Jerusalem" game.
> I had never considered what I would do if this happened.
Apologies but I stopped reading after that sentence in the very-very top of the article.
What does she mean "I had never considered"? What kind of immature and juvenile mindset is that? You plan for the success, and you also plan for the failure.
It's sad that this happened (I take no joy on someone else's pain), and at the same time I am surprised this happened.
To the positive outlook, you have built a team and have some equipment? Where/how else can you use that? As I know very little about your space, can you start doing blood-lab-work collaborating with clinics? Can you do a 23-and-me-like service? Can you sell all the hardware, cash-out at a loss, chillax for a few months, re-group and figure out what to do next? Perhaps go work for a big pharma or similar?
It's never the end, it's always one hurdle and perhaps a change of direction. Hang in there, all will be well. In 2-3 years you will be looking back at this moment and think "huh.. why was I even worried???"
EDIT: I read the full thing halfway through my note, but didn't go back up to change it.. still.. that phrase is a facepalm moment. I propose to many the "The Daily Stoic: 366 Meditations on Wisdom, Perseverance, and the Art of Living". I've gone through it twice, read/think/journal daily. It asks some very good questions, and it would have prepared the author of that post for such outcome.
Apologies but I stopped reading after that sentence in the very-very top of the article.
What does she mean "I had never considered"? What kind of immature and juvenile mindset is that? You plan for the success, and you also plan for the failure.
It's sad that this happened (I take no joy on someone else's pain), and at the same time I am surprised this happened.
To the positive outlook, you have built a team and have some equipment? Where/how else can you use that? As I know very little about your space, can you start doing blood-lab-work collaborating with clinics? Can you do a 23-and-me-like service? Can you sell all the hardware, cash-out at a loss, chillax for a few months, re-group and figure out what to do next? Perhaps go work for a big pharma or similar?
It's never the end, it's always one hurdle and perhaps a change of direction. Hang in there, all will be well. In 2-3 years you will be looking back at this moment and think "huh.. why was I even worried???"
EDIT: I read the full thing halfway through my note, but didn't go back up to change it.. still.. that phrase is a facepalm moment. I propose to many the "The Daily Stoic: 366 Meditations on Wisdom, Perseverance, and the Art of Living". I've gone through it twice, read/think/journal daily. It asks some very good questions, and it would have prepared the author of that post for such outcome.
Equipment, lab space, etc. - are all owned by the university or funding agencies. Most research institute/universities will give tenure track faculty a 'startup package' which includes space and $.
So no, they can't just start doing private work with their equipment/staff. Especially when you consider the low salaries paid to their staff (graduate students) who will regularly work for 60+hr/weeks for $40-$60k/yr depending on university. And those students are there for their education and the name of the university, not for the PI.
So they will need to start from scratch, with no money, equipment, etc.
So no, they can't just start doing private work with their equipment/staff. Especially when you consider the low salaries paid to their staff (graduate students) who will regularly work for 60+hr/weeks for $40-$60k/yr depending on university. And those students are there for their education and the name of the university, not for the PI.
So they will need to start from scratch, with no money, equipment, etc.
I assumed it was just hyperbole meant to indicate they thought they had a strong likelihood of getting tenure.
Once you are denied tenure, unless there's an extension on your tenure-track, your employment at the university is at an end. The labs, the students, the equipment, they all belong to the university. You don't get to keep any of it.
Edit: Ninja'd by doctorwho
Edit: Ninja'd by doctorwho
The article lost my interest when I couldn't find any reason why they were denied tenure.
> I couldn't find any reason why they were denied tenure.
The subjects are happy to share their experience of getting denied, but they're probably too embarrassed to share why that happened.
The subjects are happy to share their experience of getting denied, but they're probably too embarrassed to share why that happened.
Sounds like they didn't get the tenure because they can't analyze the situation.
The first one they ask works in India? Are those situations comparable?
Move to Spain? Salamanca has lovely weather all year round?
I don't really know how to advise people other than "please consider working in the private sector, research is an expensive hobby".