I was a surgeon before I became a family physician (GP) with an academic role - the issues you describe apply very well to surgery, too - I am sure the same can be said for law and banking. These are endemic societal issues that manifest in prestigious professions. It's a very difficult one to tackle.
Absolutely! The narcissism in academia is atrocious. It should be illegal for a professor to have a publication with their name on it as a coauthor when they didn't do any work on it. I know of a dept chair that has made a career off of riding others" coattails. He's a mediocre teacher and a cowardly excuse of a man.
I absolutely loved doing academic research, and miss it dearly, but the current toxic environment doesn’t make it worth it. Thanks for your videos Dr. Stapleton. Been watching them since I left academia after my postdoc research work. Really resonates….
Andy, I'm a professor and I appreciate your videos. I had some additional thoughts to add to your comments. 1. Prestige is not a separate economy from finances. They are in the same economy. You need prestige in order to have the gravitas to publish in high journals, to be invited to prestigious talks, to win awards, to attract the best graduate students, and so on... ultimately to attract more funding. It's all the same economy. Prestige is an economic unit. And why do we do it? Because we really don't want to have to lay off our postdocs and graduate students, who depend on us (and vice versa of course!). There's a hefty responsibility when you're in charge of people based on a budget with only a few years' horizon ever (at most). Yes, I'd love to buy another piece of equipment. I sure would. But my #1 fear is having to turn out someone who I feel responsible for, who depends on me, because of my inadequacy as a fundraiser. 2. There are definitely professors with big egos. Like politicians, being a professor is the kind of thing that you kind of need a big ego, or maybe some other strong driving force, to get you through the entire gauntlet. You need something to push you through the bad parts of graduate school, the postdoc experience, the academic job circuit, tenure, and so on. 3. But also, few people are born with this kind of skill set. Yes, "skill set." What comes across as a "big ego" takes a skill set. It takes a certain kind of training to come to know the right people to work your way into getting an important invited talk, award, or grant. And multiply that by 100 for the tenure circuit. That training includes skills in self-promotion, public speaking, private schmoozing, throwing pitches, networking, and so on. I certainly wasn't born with it. In fact I had an Asian upbringing where humility was a virtue, so it was much the opposite and I had quite a shell to dig out of. (And still am.) Nor were many of the people who trained me, informally, over many dinners, off-hand comments, water cooler moments, self-defacing stories, and so on. It may not look it, but there are people in their 40's and 50's right now who still are being trained by their seniors. You're basically learning the whole time. First the science, then the soft skills. 4. I agree with you that we produce more papers today. I don't think it's because we work harder. In my graduate advisor's generation, or especially in the generation before that, they used to have to make much of their equipment basically from scratch. Measurements, calculations, and techniques that we find trivial using today's commercial hardware--especially the personal computer!--took half of their PhD to build, and then was so unoptimized to actually run that it took their remaining time to get a handful of results to produce one or two brief, typewritten publications. They weren't working less hard, or less competent. They just had less at their disposal and started from further behind. Even taking a uv/vis measurement was an extreme proposition if you go back far enough. It was just a different era. We're spoiled in a LOT of respects. 5. Work-life balance. Okay, let me back up a second. I've worked in academia, and I've worked in national labs. Argaubly the work-life balance doesn't get better than a national lab, since it's a government institution and if anyone follows the 9-5 schedule, it's the government. There are very big trade-offs when it comes to work-life balance. But let's just say, if you are going to be an academic, you need to roll it into your identity as you said here. There's no such thing as work-life balance if you're living the life you want to be living, as an academic. Going to conference, giving talks, writing papers, nurturing your network relationships, etc. are actually just living your life if you choose to look at it that way. You're not swinging a sledge hammer all day. It's not taxing in the sense that you're busting your butt working. You're actually just living your life, traveling places, meeting people, joking around with old acquaintances, and so on. Except for the veneer of business, deadlines, and obligations, it could almost be the life you had as a somewhat well-funded retiree. If you look at it that way, then work-life balance doesn't mean the time you spend at home lounging around. It means all this stuff you would be doing anyway. Especially if you are fortunate enough to work at a university that folds your family (spouse, kids) into events pretty frequently, which mine does. I get that some people will see this item as very 1984, or Big Brother, but it doesn't feel that way on my end. It was a family effort to get to this point, and the other members in my department are very sweet to my family. We visit each other, our kids play together, and so on. It really is a good, wholesome way of life. If your version of life is, say... clocking out at 5 and then turning your life on, which might mean anything from doing a passion project, spending time with your family, or lounging around playing video games... I get it. I've been there and done that too. But in that case, it's not so much different from your family being very devoted to a dog rescue charity or something. In the same sense, you are doing something you care about, and it's free work but also good for your spirits, you might have made good friends there, you feel like you're making an impact, and you are still spending time with your family. Now, what does it look like if you're a graduate student trying to do this? Bleak. There's no way around it. I had kids as a postdoc, not as a graduate student. But even then, my whole paycheck went to daycare as a postdoc, and we relied solely on my wife's income to live. There are no two ways about it. This is bleak, and it's a greater socioeconomic problem that affects people of nearly all industries. It's too big for me to solve. Having kids, at least in the US, is increasingly a "luxury purchase." What else can you call it when daycare alone is $2k/mo per kid? And that's pre-pandemic, so inflation has probably surged from there. That's before diapers, doctor's fees, baby food, etc. 6. The difficulty of getting an academic position leaves most PhDs marooned. Yes, but. I guess that's how I'll say it. I took the round-about approach to getting a faculty position. I did a postdoc, then spent several years in the workforce before landing the academic position, so I have definitely felt those moments where it seemed like my dream was slipping away, and so forth. It was a sustained, crummy feeling that lasted for years. But at the same time, life goes on and you don't have to stop trying. It's not like you have thrown away the years. You are still nurturing your kids and seeing their little victories and defeats through teary eyes, you are still celebrating successive anniversaries with your spouse. You are still attending your siblings' weddings. And so forth. You are living your life. Nothing is lost. It's just that you have this dream, and like most dreams, you can continue to chip away at it and a lot of it is the journey. Like any journey, parts of it are very hard to get through, and other parts are wonderful. Maybe you never arrive at your destination. You have to be prepared for that possibility, too. You don't have to give up anything along the way. You don't have to become a permanent postdoc, and in fact I wouldn't advise it. I was hired from a permanent, salaried position, not a postdoc position. In fact, postdocs wither on the vine, and I wouldn't recommend being one for more than a few years. If you're applying from a full-fledged, salaried, professional position, then the kinds of conversations they will have is, "It really says something that you want to do this enough to take a 1/3 salary cut for it!" Whereas, a long-term postdoc applying for the same position just looks desperate and defeated. Not to mention, if you are applying from the salaried position, you're making enough money to boost up your stock portfolio, so that dividends and stock gains can defray the salary cut once you do transition to academia. 7. The most important, but also maybe the most invisible, thing that surprised me when I got to this role was that the overbearingness I remember from the professors when I was a graduate student, wasn't actually really their doing. It was the system we are all in, and the professors feel it as much as the graduate students do. Professors are setting deadlines because they _have_ deadlines. They are pressuring students for results because they _have_ pressure for results. They are cutting expenses because they _have_ their resources cut. They are promoting themselves because they _have_ the burden to do so. They are being hard on you because they _have_ to be hard on themselves. And so on. Everyone's in the same academic stew, regardless of the title on their business card. Follow it up the chain, and you'll find that the program managers also have their own pressures they are dealing with, as do their bosses, and so on. Knowing what I do now, I would say few people are being difficult on a whim. It's usually pass-through from on high, and professors usually do try to shield their students from as much of that pressure as possible. The alternative, as you say, is to get out of academia. But, despite its many difficulties, it's also a dream come true in other ways. For those who want to stay, it might be because of some Stockholm syndrome like you describe, but take this from me as someone who has been in and out of academia. There are genuinely good reasons to be in academia, despite its many hardships. I think from my perch, I could see past the possibility of Stockholm syndrome. Anyway, please keep doing what you do. I appreciate watching your videos.
Sadly academia isnt the only industry this is in. My husband came from a family of academics, but he moved into the "real world", and I have struggled to rein in his default mode of workaholism. My father was the opposite - self made successful man, very well known for what he does, officially low educational level, but his profession was based on output and your personal skill level at what you did with your hands. SO long as we have a society that values the volume of work you put out, the quality of it - its addictive to them. SOme might say they wish they didnt have to do it, but based on what I have seen in many people over different generations - most would still choose to do it.
I agree, but interestingly academia also does have an output focus - there is much focus on papers and how much grant money you win. I work in a top uni and it isn't important to be 'seen' working (ie: be in the office), just that your outputs are high and prestigious.
@hoppingwren Yes. If you can have both grants and papers, you are pretty much a star or a starlet. If you can have only one of them, let that be the grants. When you have no grants but have papers, you become invisible in your university, what I call the phantom of the department, but your position could be safe. When you have neither, they make you feel so bad you will quit.
@@sunway1374 yeah...i decided for other reasons to be a stay at home academic, write my own stuff...and soon i will set up and put them on a substack page. my thought processes were described by my professors as "making connections others dont" - which did astonish them at times., but i can rub ppl the wrong way as a result, and i am too cross disciplinary for normal academia as a result. Ive done research and written for other orgs - im happy with that. no one to tell me no.
The problems of academia: 1)Toxic environment with a lot of people with ego issues. 2)Not enough focus and rewarding for high quality teaching. 3)Doesn't allow work flexibility, so it's difficult to get in but sometimes is too difficult to leave and a lot of people that deserve to work there can't access decent positions because someone else was born 25 years earlier and is half as productive.
Great episode Andy, thank you! I have had a relatively successful career in academia, I guess mostly out of luck. Never got prestige through academic channels, many peers tried to block me off. Instead of running a war against the "prestigious" strong men wielding the scientific power in research funding I applied myself in popularizing science. It is often the case that the academic drama unfurls completely isolated from society, that when we reach out and talk to people plainly and creatively, our work gets popular recognition, which eventually feedback into academia, pulling the right kind of prestige up. The Flying Rivers in the Amazon is one such topic where our popularization campaigns made the subject so fascinating (one of our act was a TED talk in 2010) that it wen viral. Few years later, the arrogant academics embarked in me-too adoption of the Flying Rivers narrative. Like inscribed in the principles of democracy, all power emanates from the people. Reaching out to the people, making a genuine effort to craft an engaging, accessible and poetic narrative, pays off brilliantly.
Prestige is the heart of the problem in so many more ways! Why, for example, are academic publishers getting away with charging us loads of money and time, as authors, readers, reviewers, editors, while contributing nothing in return? Because the journals they publish are considered "prestigeous", that's why. And no matter how bad-unreplicable, methodologically flawed, outright fraudulent-the stuff they publish is (yes, I'm talking about you, _Nature_ and _Science,_ though by no means only about you), they will keep on being "prestigeous", so we'll all keep on paying the costs. And while many bright ideas exist about how to fix publishing, promotion, hiring, grant-making, and many more aspects of academia, all those ideas are doomed to fail because they're new, so publications and individuals trying to implement them haven't accummulated enough "prestige" to count for anything. If we want science to survive for much longer, we have to find a way to kick the very notion of prestiege out the door.
OK. I agree with you. But the blame is not totally on the journals. The 'prestige' that they have is put there by the media and the academic culture. The publishers are just exploiting it. No doubt they continue to promote and grow it. But the prestige needs both sides (journals and academic culture) to exist.
You can add Lancet and NEJM on top. COVID was not kind to them.. Medicine is even worse, starts at the funding stage down to the publication, the methodologies are often interesting.
Prestige economy is one side of the problem. Another and closely related one is the rampant prevalence of Dark Triad personalities in Academia. The fact is that Academia has become so much like politics. Only those with thick skin survive and thrive, and guess who have the thickest skin (i.e., no empathy, no guilt, no remorse)? The "politicians" among the researchers, of course. In too many cases, they are not worthy to be called scientists, because all they do is setting up article production factories and initiating multiple "collaborations" with like-minded "researchers" so that they can get maximum output for minimal input into each paper. They often take someones Bachelors or Masters thesis and just put both themselves and a number of their like-minded colleagues on the manuscript, and it is not uncommon that they exclude the poor student who actually did all the hard work from the final paper. I have seen and heard about this exact scenario too many times. Basically these boasters/politicians piss all over the Vancouver rules of co-authorship, and there are no consequences for breaking them, so they thrive while those who play fair suffer because they do not have these "production factories" and "collaborations" and thus have far less publications to show for it. Academia is indeed rotten!
Dear Dr. Stapleton, thanks a lot for this really great video! I could find myself again. I am also thinking that my career is done and it is hard to leave something you actually care. But I realized the academic world became very toxic and I don't want to be part of this. Especially after hearing how big PIs talk really bad about Postdocs in general. I was shocked and the worst thing, I was sitting in a meeting as a PostDoc representative 😞So it was a punch in my face directly and to all the others who really do amazing work. There is no value and worth anymore. Really hard to believe that academia will change one day. Again a big thank you for making these kind of videos!
Thank you for this service. It’s been essential for helping me to shape my life decisions in the coming months. I’m a senior in undergrad deciding on PhD programs and I’m now pretty sure I should do industry rather than academia
One thing I learnt going to the UK to do a postdoc Is the twitter mafia of academia. Scientists in Australia are simply not as social media focused and self promotional as academics in the UK. If you were retweeting other academics in the UK and all their research and research-adjacent (emphasis on the adjacent) tweets, you were noticed more. It had very little to do with the publications from my experience.
I used to sleep in the meetings. It didn't mean that I was overworked. I am mostly wondering about those 50% or so academics who didn't publish anything, no grants, but still hanging around for years. What it their secret ?
haha love this question, I think the secret is either teaching and heavy service (they are doing things in the background you don't see) or that they secured permanency early on. But in the universities in Australia those academics are being weeded out pretty heavily, not that many of them surviving now.
@@hoppingwren Good for Australians. Look at those US university presidents profiles who got in the hot water last week. How much they have actually published?
Oh yeah. One of those d-heads would insert himself everywhere (from powerful department jobs to student initiatives). He'd go to the bar with us students, and I fell for it, thinking he was a friend. I came into the program with a great network and good reputation, money, and very promising momentum. The d-head screwed me over several times, and i ended up with a mental disorder, a chronic illness, my money lost, momentum gone, no networking, decade gone, motivation lost. I'm still incredibly angry and I've had to let it go so that I won't jump off something and can instead focus on getting myself together again to do something else.
Ha, its some irony I'm listening to you rant about overwork in academia as I overwork in academia. Wish I could just go to sleep right now but results results results, sigh. I'm in a funded masters program at a top 10 and I know many people would kill to be where I am but...man. Seriously reconsidering continuing for the PhD
I hate the concept of suffering through out your education. My supervisor has always put my suffering down because apparently it's part of the course and he suffered through it. And that attitude leads to little or no help where I actually need it. I shouldn't have to financially suffer, for example, just so I can be proud at the end. It's not part of the course and it's only making research harder to focus on. Fortunately I do have a second supervisor now. But this sense he has that he suffered so it's OK, just sucks. And rather selfish and disrespectful.
Quitting isn't just about thinking value is in work and abut identity. I honeslty couldn't give a flying f* about my h score (which is what gets me my academic jobs). Quitting is also definitely about economic pressures, having a mortgage and kids etc. I tried to get jobs in government and industry all year this year and frankly I couldn't. I was vie-ing for jobs at a much lower pay than I would get in academia, and in the end I was offered another academic job at the highest pay of any job I considered in government so I had to take the academic jobs and then damnit I'm still here.
I think overwork happens everywhere. I see it everywhere, literally. Take restaurant business, it is sometimes terrible to hear all their stories about how hard these people work. Myself I draw a line and do not engage in conversations after 6 pm till 8 am and no work can be done between these hours that is considered my salary work. I do gigs sometimes. But for work - they can use my brain for a limited amount of hours, and no one in academia has to work at night because no one's life depends on it. In most cases, work can be left where it is and continued tomorrow. Some experiments shall continue, but that's the drill. My bosses are surprised all the time when I say I do not work at night, but so far I have a job and all works fine. If you do not draw a line, no one will notice it exists. But do have a plan B, just in case. I do. :)
Actually they never tell you this but they respect you because you drew a line and you are genuine in your work. You seem to also have work ethics and because you are not overworked, you may be more pleasant to be around so in answer they keep you. I've realized that myself when I drew a line I got poemotoed and when I kept working and working I lost jobs because I was so overworked and looks like it. Life is not fair and take care of your health people
Its pretty depressing at the age of 50 when you dont earn enough to pay tax. Funnily enough though working outside academia long hours, no weekends, early and late meetings is pretty standard these days. Its just urgency day in day out.
Sounds like the motherhood penalty which affects all women who wish to become parents - it takes years out of your career, no matter which field of endeavour you are in.
"...in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." -Ike
This is because of severe "overproduction" of PhDs. There are simply no positions even for the half of brilliant young researcher even if old and corrupted are thrown out.
Im a postdoc in material science and I work 90% of my waking time each day (at least it feels like that). The amout of work Ive still in front of me is enough for 24/7 for the next 3 months and its not getting less. You do have to love this work. The job safely and salary is certainly not worth it... and ofc the prestige economy is addictive...
Please let us know if you have written and published a book on this topic of academic culture. I’m writing a book (outside of academia) on social institutions and looking for content on this subject. Thank you.
I know exaggerated working hours not suitable but what if the person is so so ambitious like aggressively I think those academic people are so ambitious and this push them to work that much or not being able to sleep because I understand I am also so ambitious and sometimes I do whatever it takes to succeed even if this contains some of the manipulative actions towards people
It's crazy how many vlogs, blogs, reddit posts, etc tell people that today getting a phd is not worth it like it may of been in the past. The opportunity cost is crazy and the rewards at the end are not guaranteed. Yet so many people still want a phd even with all this information that's out there. It tells you how strong the prestige economy is and the irrationality that's driving it.
@@wrbl I am an international doctoral student, and I started mine about three months ago. Before coming here, I worked as a research assistant in a lab. However, I treated it as work and didn't go beyond the 8-hour window. A PhD is different; the stress from coursework and PhD research is enormous. I didn't expect it to be so stressful. I love doing science and research, but a PhD and academia, in general, have little to do with science. It almost feels like a political game between PIs, and they use their PhD students and postdocs to establish their weirdest ideas even when they have little clue about it
I think academia currently has way too many people in leadership without actual professional experience. Like too many people who went from undergrad to grad. They have no clue what a good environment in terms of management looks like.
Difícilmente puede atribuirse a la suerte. Los gerentes tienen sus propias motivaciones para rechazarte. El ego, la soberbia, el temor al verte más como rival que como aliado, el hecho de que no les has besado el trasero lo suficiente, porque no comparten la misma ideología o simplemente porque les caíste mal, son motivaciones que los impulsan a rechazar candidatos a puestos de trabajo. ¿Suerte? No, amigo. Intereses. Tú no actúas ni decides por suerte, decides por tus propias valoraciones.
People who choose to go into academia are choosing prestige over other things such as monetary rewards. Prestige amongst their family for having a PhD, prestige amongst their peers for being published, it's all about todd for those choosing that as a career.
You can do everything right in life in general and still get fucked over. Bad things happen to good, hard-working people all the time. You can't control if you get hired or chosen for a position. So forgive yourself and work on changing the system from the inside out.
Unfortunately they WATCH others 200 miles inferiors taking the position. I think academia will disappear because it doesn't bring anything anymore, besides trouble. You do a fantastic job here, dear Andy! 😮😮😮😮Oh sorry doctor Stampleton
@oscarstaszky1960 I think a lot of academics did start with a drive to discover new things and advance knowledge. But by middle age they have become bored or unable to concentrate on science. So are now in it for the status, and the prestige.
Money? Senior academics get 6-figure salaries. If they are awards winning or get into executive levels positions, they could command even 7-figure salaries. Their housing and transport could be paid for. The salary after the tax is pretty much all disposable income.
You should be specific about what subject of study which you are talking. You seem to be talking about double -standards at schools, and employment problems . You sound like accademic life is not suitable for you because you are focusing only difficulties.
Dude, you’re exaggerating, projecting, and generalising. You may have had a disappointing experience in academia, but not every scholar is just out for prestige. Deans and heads of department are not usually incompetent. Most PhD students or post-docs don’t feel as stuck or overworked as you did. I’d recommend more facts and less opinion. 💁🏼♂️
This will never work because AI alone cannot discover new things - you need to work hard with an AI to do this; ain't a casual thing. Innovation is one of biggest impact factors when considering a paper for publication.
@@kenhimurabr That is what I am saying. Creativity is much more important than hard work because AI will never be able to ask a question no one ask it before. In order to ask a question no one asked before you need real creativity. AI is very good at hard work and analyzing huge amount of data but it is not creative. Before AI we valued ability to analyze huge amount of data as intelligence and AI will make those people obsolete except those who can feed AI with new data.
You mean pursuing a phd for prestige? I don't think that's one of the common top reasons. At least not in my areas of physical sciences and mathematics. People do a phd because they like solving problems, finding out new things and the academic environment. Doing a phd then is like an apprenticeship, the students get to have supervision and mentorship before they gradually become more independent researchers. I am not saying a phd degree doesn't give any prestige, just I think that it's not a top motivator.
The single greatest predictor of your success in academia is the amount of funding your PhD advisor has to spend on you. No different than life and socio-economic class.
Publish, publish, publish. = Prestige. Teaching and community service is secondary.
YES
It’s like painter paints, instead of putting priorities on teaching students or helping other painters setting up their exhibitions …
I was a surgeon before I became a family physician (GP) with an academic role - the issues you describe apply very well to surgery, too - I am sure the same can be said for law and banking. These are endemic societal issues that manifest in prestigious professions. It's a very difficult one to tackle.
And this problem is everywhere in the world and perhaps little less in US, I think
i have met quite an amount of people in academia that are great at boasting, but they are at best mediocre, but people are afraid to call them out.
Absolutely! The narcissism in academia is atrocious.
It should be illegal for a professor to have a publication with their name on it as a coauthor when they didn't do any work on it.
I know of a dept chair that has made a career off of riding others" coattails. He's a mediocre teacher and a cowardly excuse of a man.
I absolutely loved doing academic research, and miss it dearly, but the current toxic environment doesn’t make it worth it. Thanks for your videos Dr. Stapleton. Been watching them since I left academia after my postdoc research work. Really resonates….
Relatable
Andy, I'm a professor and I appreciate your videos. I had some additional thoughts to add to your comments.
1. Prestige is not a separate economy from finances. They are in the same economy. You need prestige in order to have the gravitas to publish in high journals, to be invited to prestigious talks, to win awards, to attract the best graduate students, and so on... ultimately to attract more funding. It's all the same economy. Prestige is an economic unit. And why do we do it? Because we really don't want to have to lay off our postdocs and graduate students, who depend on us (and vice versa of course!). There's a hefty responsibility when you're in charge of people based on a budget with only a few years' horizon ever (at most). Yes, I'd love to buy another piece of equipment. I sure would. But my #1 fear is having to turn out someone who I feel responsible for, who depends on me, because of my inadequacy as a fundraiser.
2. There are definitely professors with big egos. Like politicians, being a professor is the kind of thing that you kind of need a big ego, or maybe some other strong driving force, to get you through the entire gauntlet. You need something to push you through the bad parts of graduate school, the postdoc experience, the academic job circuit, tenure, and so on.
3. But also, few people are born with this kind of skill set. Yes, "skill set." What comes across as a "big ego" takes a skill set. It takes a certain kind of training to come to know the right people to work your way into getting an important invited talk, award, or grant. And multiply that by 100 for the tenure circuit. That training includes skills in self-promotion, public speaking, private schmoozing, throwing pitches, networking, and so on. I certainly wasn't born with it. In fact I had an Asian upbringing where humility was a virtue, so it was much the opposite and I had quite a shell to dig out of. (And still am.) Nor were many of the people who trained me, informally, over many dinners, off-hand comments, water cooler moments, self-defacing stories, and so on. It may not look it, but there are people in their 40's and 50's right now who still are being trained by their seniors. You're basically learning the whole time. First the science, then the soft skills.
4. I agree with you that we produce more papers today. I don't think it's because we work harder. In my graduate advisor's generation, or especially in the generation before that, they used to have to make much of their equipment basically from scratch. Measurements, calculations, and techniques that we find trivial using today's commercial hardware--especially the personal computer!--took half of their PhD to build, and then was so unoptimized to actually run that it took their remaining time to get a handful of results to produce one or two brief, typewritten publications. They weren't working less hard, or less competent. They just had less at their disposal and started from further behind. Even taking a uv/vis measurement was an extreme proposition if you go back far enough. It was just a different era. We're spoiled in a LOT of respects.
5. Work-life balance. Okay, let me back up a second. I've worked in academia, and I've worked in national labs. Argaubly the work-life balance doesn't get better than a national lab, since it's a government institution and if anyone follows the 9-5 schedule, it's the government. There are very big trade-offs when it comes to work-life balance. But let's just say, if you are going to be an academic, you need to roll it into your identity as you said here. There's no such thing as work-life balance if you're living the life you want to be living, as an academic. Going to conference, giving talks, writing papers, nurturing your network relationships, etc. are actually just living your life if you choose to look at it that way. You're not swinging a sledge hammer all day. It's not taxing in the sense that you're busting your butt working. You're actually just living your life, traveling places, meeting people, joking around with old acquaintances, and so on. Except for the veneer of business, deadlines, and obligations, it could almost be the life you had as a somewhat well-funded retiree. If you look at it that way, then work-life balance doesn't mean the time you spend at home lounging around. It means all this stuff you would be doing anyway. Especially if you are fortunate enough to work at a university that folds your family (spouse, kids) into events pretty frequently, which mine does. I get that some people will see this item as very 1984, or Big Brother, but it doesn't feel that way on my end. It was a family effort to get to this point, and the other members in my department are very sweet to my family. We visit each other, our kids play together, and so on. It really is a good, wholesome way of life.
If your version of life is, say... clocking out at 5 and then turning your life on, which might mean anything from doing a passion project, spending time with your family, or lounging around playing video games... I get it. I've been there and done that too. But in that case, it's not so much different from your family being very devoted to a dog rescue charity or something. In the same sense, you are doing something you care about, and it's free work but also good for your spirits, you might have made good friends there, you feel like you're making an impact, and you are still spending time with your family.
Now, what does it look like if you're a graduate student trying to do this? Bleak. There's no way around it. I had kids as a postdoc, not as a graduate student. But even then, my whole paycheck went to daycare as a postdoc, and we relied solely on my wife's income to live. There are no two ways about it. This is bleak, and it's a greater socioeconomic problem that affects people of nearly all industries. It's too big for me to solve. Having kids, at least in the US, is increasingly a "luxury purchase." What else can you call it when daycare alone is $2k/mo per kid? And that's pre-pandemic, so inflation has probably surged from there. That's before diapers, doctor's fees, baby food, etc.
6. The difficulty of getting an academic position leaves most PhDs marooned. Yes, but. I guess that's how I'll say it. I took the round-about approach to getting a faculty position. I did a postdoc, then spent several years in the workforce before landing the academic position, so I have definitely felt those moments where it seemed like my dream was slipping away, and so forth. It was a sustained, crummy feeling that lasted for years. But at the same time, life goes on and you don't have to stop trying. It's not like you have thrown away the years. You are still nurturing your kids and seeing their little victories and defeats through teary eyes, you are still celebrating successive anniversaries with your spouse. You are still attending your siblings' weddings. And so forth. You are living your life. Nothing is lost. It's just that you have this dream, and like most dreams, you can continue to chip away at it and a lot of it is the journey. Like any journey, parts of it are very hard to get through, and other parts are wonderful. Maybe you never arrive at your destination. You have to be prepared for that possibility, too.
You don't have to give up anything along the way. You don't have to become a permanent postdoc, and in fact I wouldn't advise it. I was hired from a permanent, salaried position, not a postdoc position. In fact, postdocs wither on the vine, and I wouldn't recommend being one for more than a few years. If you're applying from a full-fledged, salaried, professional position, then the kinds of conversations they will have is, "It really says something that you want to do this enough to take a 1/3 salary cut for it!" Whereas, a long-term postdoc applying for the same position just looks desperate and defeated. Not to mention, if you are applying from the salaried position, you're making enough money to boost up your stock portfolio, so that dividends and stock gains can defray the salary cut once you do transition to academia.
7. The most important, but also maybe the most invisible, thing that surprised me when I got to this role was that the overbearingness I remember from the professors when I was a graduate student, wasn't actually really their doing. It was the system we are all in, and the professors feel it as much as the graduate students do. Professors are setting deadlines because they _have_ deadlines. They are pressuring students for results because they _have_ pressure for results. They are cutting expenses because they _have_ their resources cut. They are promoting themselves because they _have_ the burden to do so. They are being hard on you because they _have_ to be hard on themselves. And so on. Everyone's in the same academic stew, regardless of the title on their business card. Follow it up the chain, and you'll find that the program managers also have their own pressures they are dealing with, as do their bosses, and so on. Knowing what I do now, I would say few people are being difficult on a whim. It's usually pass-through from on high, and professors usually do try to shield their students from as much of that pressure as possible.
The alternative, as you say, is to get out of academia. But, despite its many difficulties, it's also a dream come true in other ways. For those who want to stay, it might be because of some Stockholm syndrome like you describe, but take this from me as someone who has been in and out of academia. There are genuinely good reasons to be in academia, despite its many hardships. I think from my perch, I could see past the possibility of Stockholm syndrome.
Anyway, please keep doing what you do. I appreciate watching your videos.
This is a great comment. Thanks for sharing.
thank you for telling your story, it is very motivating
I really appreciate hearing your perspective. Thanks so much for sharing it
Sadly academia isnt the only industry this is in. My husband came from a family of academics, but he moved into the "real world", and I have struggled to rein in his default mode of workaholism. My father was the opposite - self made successful man, very well known for what he does, officially low educational level, but his profession was based on output and your personal skill level at what you did with your hands. SO long as we have a society that values the volume of work you put out, the quality of it - its addictive to them. SOme might say they wish they didnt have to do it, but based on what I have seen in many people over different generations - most would still choose to do it.
Ya. The problems described in this video exist pretty much in every sector.
I agree, but interestingly academia also does have an output focus - there is much focus on papers and how much grant money you win. I work in a top uni and it isn't important to be 'seen' working (ie: be in the office), just that your outputs are high and prestigious.
@hoppingwren Yes. If you can have both grants and papers, you are pretty much a star or a starlet. If you can have only one of them, let that be the grants. When you have no grants but have papers, you become invisible in your university, what I call the phantom of the department, but your position could be safe. When you have neither, they make you feel so bad you will quit.
@@sunway1374 yeah...i decided for other reasons to be a stay at home academic, write my own stuff...and soon i will set up and put them on a substack page. my thought processes were described by my professors as "making connections others dont" - which did astonish them at times., but i can rub ppl the wrong way as a result, and i am too cross disciplinary for normal academia as a result. Ive done research and written for other orgs - im happy with that. no one to tell me no.
The problems of academia:
1)Toxic environment with a lot of people with ego issues.
2)Not enough focus and rewarding for high quality teaching.
3)Doesn't allow work flexibility, so it's difficult to get in but sometimes is too difficult to leave and a lot of people that deserve to work there can't access decent positions because someone else was born 25 years earlier and is half as productive.
Great episode Andy, thank you! I have had a relatively successful career in academia, I guess mostly out of luck. Never got prestige through academic channels, many peers tried to block me off. Instead of running a war against the "prestigious" strong men wielding the scientific power in research funding I applied myself in popularizing science. It is often the case that the academic drama unfurls completely isolated from society, that when we reach out and talk to people plainly and creatively, our work gets popular recognition, which eventually feedback into academia, pulling the right kind of prestige up. The Flying Rivers in the Amazon is one such topic where our popularization campaigns made the subject so fascinating (one of our act was a TED talk in 2010) that it wen viral. Few years later, the arrogant academics embarked in me-too adoption of the Flying Rivers narrative. Like inscribed in the principles of democracy, all power emanates from the people. Reaching out to the people, making a genuine effort to craft an engaging, accessible and poetic narrative, pays off brilliantly.
Prestige is the heart of the problem in so many more ways!
Why, for example, are academic publishers getting away with charging us loads of money and time, as authors, readers, reviewers, editors, while contributing nothing in return? Because the journals they publish are considered "prestigeous", that's why. And no matter how bad-unreplicable, methodologically flawed, outright fraudulent-the stuff they publish is (yes, I'm talking about you, _Nature_ and _Science,_ though by no means only about you), they will keep on being "prestigeous", so we'll all keep on paying the costs.
And while many bright ideas exist about how to fix publishing, promotion, hiring, grant-making, and many more aspects of academia, all those ideas are doomed to fail because they're new, so publications and individuals trying to implement them haven't accummulated enough "prestige" to count for anything.
If we want science to survive for much longer, we have to find a way to kick the very notion of prestiege out the door.
OK. I agree with you. But the blame is not totally on the journals. The 'prestige' that they have is put there by the media and the academic culture. The publishers are just exploiting it. No doubt they continue to promote and grow it. But the prestige needs both sides (journals and academic culture) to exist.
@@sunway1374 Quite! Without the culture, those journals and publishers wouldn't have been able to get away with dismal performance.
You can add Lancet and NEJM on top. COVID was not kind to them..
Medicine is even worse, starts at the funding stage down to the publication, the methodologies are often interesting.
Prestige economy is one side of the problem. Another and closely related one is the rampant prevalence of Dark Triad personalities in Academia. The fact is that Academia has become so much like politics. Only those with thick skin survive and thrive, and guess who have the thickest skin (i.e., no empathy, no guilt, no remorse)? The "politicians" among the researchers, of course. In too many cases, they are not worthy to be called scientists, because all they do is setting up article production factories and initiating multiple "collaborations" with like-minded "researchers" so that they can get maximum output for minimal input into each paper.
They often take someones Bachelors or Masters thesis and just put both themselves and a number of their like-minded colleagues on the manuscript, and it is not uncommon that they exclude the poor student who actually did all the hard work from the final paper. I have seen and heard about this exact scenario too many times. Basically these boasters/politicians piss all over the Vancouver rules of co-authorship, and there are no consequences for breaking them, so they thrive while those who play fair suffer because they do not have these "production factories" and "collaborations" and thus have far less publications to show for it. Academia is indeed rotten!
Dear Dr. Stapleton, thanks a lot for this really great video! I could find myself again. I am also thinking that my career is done and it is hard to leave something you actually care. But I realized the academic world became very toxic and I don't want to be part of this. Especially after hearing how big PIs talk really bad about Postdocs in general. I was shocked and the worst thing, I was sitting in a meeting as a PostDoc representative 😞So it was a punch in my face directly and to all the others who really do amazing work. There is no value and worth anymore. Really hard to believe that academia will change one day. Again a big thank you for making these kind of videos!
You are an inspiration Andy - to get out of this quagmire. I'll follow you into the entrepreneurial unknowns.... 🙂
Very VERY well said. THIS needs to be talked about widely!
Spot-on. I know you've never met or known the people I know, but you describe them perfectly
Thank you for this service. It’s been essential for helping me to shape my life decisions in the coming months. I’m a senior in undergrad deciding on PhD programs and I’m now pretty sure I should do industry rather than academia
I enjoy you insights and perspective. Thanks for sharing your experiences.
One thing I learnt going to the UK to do a postdoc Is the twitter mafia of academia. Scientists in Australia are simply not as social media focused and self promotional as academics in the UK. If you were retweeting other academics in the UK and all their research and research-adjacent (emphasis on the adjacent) tweets, you were noticed more. It had very little to do with the publications from my experience.
I used to sleep in the meetings. It didn't mean that I was overworked. I am mostly wondering about those 50% or so academics who didn't publish anything, no grants, but still hanging around for years. What it their secret ?
haha love this question, I think the secret is either teaching and heavy service (they are doing things in the background you don't see) or that they secured permanency early on. But in the universities in Australia those academics are being weeded out pretty heavily, not that many of them surviving now.
@@hoppingwren Good for Australians. Look at those US university presidents profiles who got in the hot water last week. How much they have actually published?
Oh yeah. One of those d-heads would insert himself everywhere (from powerful department jobs to student initiatives). He'd go to the bar with us students, and I fell for it, thinking he was a friend. I came into the program with a great network and good reputation, money, and very promising momentum. The d-head screwed me over several times, and i ended up with a mental disorder, a chronic illness, my money lost, momentum gone, no networking, decade gone, motivation lost.
I'm still incredibly angry and I've had to let it go so that I won't jump off something and can instead focus on getting myself together again to do something else.
Ha, its some irony I'm listening to you rant about overwork in academia as I overwork in academia. Wish I could just go to sleep right now but results results results, sigh. I'm in a funded masters program at a top 10 and I know many people would kill to be where I am but...man. Seriously reconsidering continuing for the PhD
The job market is not too good at the moment, might continue with one just to get in at a better time.
I hate the concept of suffering through out your education.
My supervisor has always put my suffering down because apparently it's part of the course and he suffered through it. And that attitude leads to little or no help where I actually need it.
I shouldn't have to financially suffer, for example, just so I can be proud at the end. It's not part of the course and it's only making research harder to focus on.
Fortunately I do have a second supervisor now.
But this sense he has that he suffered so it's OK, just sucks. And rather selfish and disrespectful.
Quitting isn't just about thinking value is in work and abut identity. I honeslty couldn't give a flying f* about my h score (which is what gets me my academic jobs). Quitting is also definitely about economic pressures, having a mortgage and kids etc.
I tried to get jobs in government and industry all year this year and frankly I couldn't. I was vie-ing for jobs at a much lower pay than I would get in academia, and in the end I was offered another academic job at the highest pay of any job I considered in government so I had to take the academic jobs and then damnit I'm still here.
"They are unable to organise themselves let alone other people" ROTF!!
I think overwork happens everywhere. I see it everywhere, literally. Take restaurant business, it is sometimes terrible to hear all their stories about how hard these people work. Myself I draw a line and do not engage in conversations after 6 pm till 8 am and no work can be done between these hours that is considered my salary work. I do gigs sometimes. But for work - they can use my brain for a limited amount of hours, and no one in academia has to work at night because no one's life depends on it. In most cases, work can be left where it is and continued tomorrow. Some experiments shall continue, but that's the drill. My bosses are surprised all the time when I say I do not work at night, but so far I have a job and all works fine. If you do not draw a line, no one will notice it exists. But do have a plan B, just in case. I do. :)
Actually they never tell you this but they respect you because you drew a line and you are genuine in your work. You seem to also have work ethics and because you are not overworked, you may be more pleasant to be around so in answer they keep you.
I've realized that myself when I drew a line I got poemotoed and when I kept working and working I lost jobs because I was so overworked and looks like it.
Life is not fair and take care of your health people
one of your best videos, really wish to send it to my HOD
love your channel, support you a bit!!!
Status Game .... That book explain some of these behaviors
This one felt more like a stream of consciousness than one of your usual YouTUbe videos. There were moments in which it was clearly personal.
That's ok too I think. If everyone is telling the same or similar personal stories, it is a sign for a systemic problem.
Its pretty depressing at the age of 50 when you dont earn enough to pay tax.
Funnily enough though working outside academia long hours, no weekends, early and late meetings is pretty standard these days. Its just urgency day in day out.
Not just academics. Applicable to most professions. 100 hours expected per week . Calculate your actual pay per hour . It ain’t too rosy.
Sounds like the motherhood penalty which affects all women who wish to become parents - it takes years out of your career, no matter which field of endeavour you are in.
"The cream will rise to the top" - Macho Man Randy Savage (and Andy)
It's who you know, not what you know
"...in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." -Ike
incredibly helpful and informative. thanks!
This is because of severe "overproduction" of PhDs. There are simply no positions even for the half of brilliant young researcher even if old and corrupted are thrown out.
love ur YT thank you for speaking on this
It is soooo easy in today's economy to work 80hrs+ and still be unable to pay for food/rent/basic necessities.
Im a postdoc in material science and I work 90% of my waking time each day (at least it feels like that). The amout of work Ive still in front of me is enough for 24/7 for the next 3 months and its not getting less. You do have to love this work. The job safely and salary is certainly not worth it... and ofc the prestige economy is addictive...
I went to university for a bachelors degree and had a burnout because it was too much work and no breaks. Just as you said in your video.
Please let us know if you have written and published a book on this topic of academic culture. I’m writing a book (outside of academia) on social institutions and looking for content on this subject. Thank you.
You neeed to provide links of the papers you cite.
Sadly, the pandemic left me with four years of academic career gap.
I know exaggerated working hours not suitable but what if the person is so so ambitious like aggressively
I think those academic people are so ambitious and this push them to work that much or not being able to sleep because I understand I am also so ambitious and sometimes I do whatever it takes to succeed even if this contains some of the manipulative actions towards people
Did he just adjust his beard at time 9:20? XD btw I like watching his videos, that moment was just so fun that I have to point it out.
It's crazy how many vlogs, blogs, reddit posts, etc tell people that today getting a phd is not worth it like it may of been in the past. The opportunity cost is crazy and the rewards at the end are not guaranteed. Yet so many people still want a phd even with all this information that's out there. It tells you how strong the prestige economy is and the irrationality that's driving it.
Completely true
I just started my PhD and can feel all of this...what have I done with my life?
\
Bro too far into crazy that he cant form a correct sentence on the second half
I am happiest man on earth switching to industry after 5 years where my knowledge is appreciated and well paid
@@Marcosss-7-years-ago tbh, I just noticed it now, and yes, sometimes it can happen, not that big deal.... preach nerd
@@wrbl I am an international doctoral student, and I started mine about three months ago. Before coming here, I worked as a research assistant in a lab. However, I treated it as work and didn't go beyond the 8-hour window. A PhD is different; the stress from coursework and PhD research is enormous. I didn't expect it to be so stressful. I love doing science and research, but a PhD and academia, in general, have little to do with science. It almost feels like a political game between PIs, and they use their PhD students and postdocs to establish their weirdest ideas even when they have little clue about it
@@alikmirzoyan5422 oh man you’re 100% accurate with what you’ve said… good for that You you realize this early 🙂 crossing my fingers for you
I have to say that you know power dynamics in academia perfectly
I think academia currently has way too many people in leadership without actual professional experience. Like too many people who went from undergrad to grad. They have no clue what a good environment in terms of management looks like.
Kindly guide us with your knowledge is there any AI tool which can give us graphs on the basis of provided query.
More of these videos please
Difícilmente puede atribuirse a la suerte. Los gerentes tienen sus propias motivaciones para rechazarte. El ego, la soberbia, el temor al verte más como rival que como aliado, el hecho de que no les has besado el trasero lo suficiente, porque no comparten la misma ideología o simplemente porque les caíste mal, son motivaciones que los impulsan a rechazar candidatos a puestos de trabajo. ¿Suerte? No, amigo. Intereses. Tú no actúas ni decides por suerte, decides por tus propias valoraciones.
Mindgames of the intelligent community!!
Does this not exist in all fields including it management?
People who choose to go into academia are choosing prestige over other things such as monetary rewards. Prestige amongst their family for having a PhD, prestige amongst their peers for being published, it's all about todd for those choosing that as a career.
1:52 Opium of the Intellectuals... or as many Australians like to say, educated idiots.
What do you think about chemRxiv ?
Academia for brighter world 👍
But Academia + Aristocracy + Egoism + Nepotism = Hellish Cycle of Decadences with Toxicity that often be ignored 💀
You can do everything right in life in general and still get fucked over. Bad things happen to good, hard-working people all the time. You can't control if you get hired or chosen for a position. So forgive yourself and work on changing the system from the inside out.
So true😅
Unfortunately they WATCH others 200 miles inferiors taking the position. I think academia will disappear because it doesn't bring anything anymore, besides trouble. You do a fantastic job here, dear Andy! 😮😮😮😮Oh sorry doctor Stampleton
It's great that after my doctorate I'm not going to tie my life to academia. There are so many more interesting things to do, like picking my nose :)
So you are making your money out of your phd or the experience of phd and making those who are into it feel the complete hopelessness
It doesn't mean he is not right. There are other sources to go to if you want to hear the positives about academia and feel cheerful about it.
"It will get better."
"No, it doesn't." 😆
Don't begrudge academics their prestige. What else do they have?
Integrity?
they are supposed to have something better aside from just prestige since after all, its always been about the pursuit of knowledge, right?
@oscarstaszky1960 I think a lot of academics did start with a drive to discover new things and advance knowledge. But by middle age they have become bored or unable to concentrate on science. So are now in it for the status, and the prestige.
Money? Senior academics get 6-figure salaries. If they are awards winning or get into executive levels positions, they could command even 7-figure salaries. Their housing and transport could be paid for. The salary after the tax is pretty much all disposable income.
🤔
You should be specific about what subject of study which you are talking. You seem to be talking about double -standards at schools, and employment problems . You sound like accademic life is not suitable for you because you are focusing only difficulties.
Alot of life is luck.
So many narcissists in academia, it is unbelievable
Homo academicus, bourdieu? Edit: Yes, their theory was indeed bourdieu 😂
Dude, you’re exaggerating, projecting, and generalising. You may have had a disappointing experience in academia, but not every scholar is just out for prestige. Deans and heads of department are not usually incompetent. Most PhD students or post-docs don’t feel as stuck or overworked as you did. I’d recommend more facts and less opinion. 💁🏼♂️
Cry for me.
Academia will lose value with AI because every person will soon outperform any academic with creativity rather than hard work.
This will never work because AI alone cannot discover new things - you need to work hard with an AI to do this; ain't a casual thing. Innovation is one of biggest impact factors when considering a paper for publication.
@@kenhimurabr That is what I am saying. Creativity is much more important than hard work because AI will never be able to ask a question no one ask it before. In order to ask a question no one asked before you need real creativity. AI is very good at hard work and analyzing huge amount of data but it is not creative. Before AI we valued ability to analyze huge amount of data as intelligence and AI will make those people obsolete except those who can feed AI with new data.
*Isn't that why we pursue a PhD in the first place?*
You mean pursuing a phd for prestige? I don't think that's one of the common top reasons. At least not in my areas of physical sciences and mathematics. People do a phd because they like solving problems, finding out new things and the academic environment. Doing a phd then is like an apprenticeship, the students get to have supervision and mentorship before they gradually become more independent researchers. I am not saying a phd degree doesn't give any prestige, just I think that it's not a top motivator.
The single greatest predictor of your success in academia is the amount of funding your PhD advisor has to spend on you. No different than life and socio-economic class.