My advisor let me in on the "can't fail students" aspect. He was flustered one day and I asked what was wrong. He said something along the lines of, "I have this student who just won't do their work, but I can't fail them because my boss has warned me that I fail too many students. I can't help it if the student literally will not submit work, yet it is somehow my fault.." I learned a valuable lesson that day. And yes, the student passed the class.
If the failure rate for any lecturer is low i.e. very few consistently fail from his/her class (in comparison to the average for that subject), then that lecturer should never be dismissed since there should(!!) be well-known systems already in place to protect against this. An unfair dismissal tribunal is an obvious option, though by then, that may be too late to reverse any dismissal - unless reinstatement is (justifiably) forced(!!). On the other hand, clearly, if a lecturer has a consistent higher-than-average rate of failures - for that subject - then the fault very probably lies with the lecturer's teaching method. 'Standard steps' would be expected to be followed before any action is taken. --> Seems basic common sense 101.
@@ChrisM541 but if they don't fail people unless there's no way around it doesn't that mess up the average? Like if a prof actually started grading accurately then wouldn't that make them look bad? It really shows the whole problem with the comodification of education
Great material, Andy! I would add to this list: 1. I hired you because you are docile and you will keep on writing papers using a method I developed 20 years ago, 2. You are a cheap labor who is only as valuable as his/her publication list, 3. The only purpose for us to go to a research conference is to dance, get drunk and forget about our jobs, 4. Our methodology has become obsolete but I only have five years left till retirement so let's keep on going.
10. You typically get a job in academia based on networks, rather than pure merit of your work. Having an advisor who gets invited to give lots of talks to various places increases your chances a lot.
To be fair, thats the case for everything. People who make the hiring decisions are much more comfortable taking on someone if they have a reference from a party they know and trust. Merit is great, but merit on paper doesn't make them feel as comfortable when deciding who to hire. When you're compared to someone who may look worse on paper, but comes recommended as a holistic "person" and "good worker/person" from a trusted source, its a lot easier emotionally to go for the recommended option by a close friend/coworker you trust rather than the person who is better on paper.
I get this, I will not pretend that the only reason why I can do a MPhil right now is because my final year project supervisor recommended me to his collaborator on a collab project where his collaborator preferably want someone who already is familiar with my FYP supervisor. That being said, I’m still working extra hard because I want to do it
@@chriswright6245 Absolutely! Social sciences are so apt to controversy that there's literally a showtune in "West Side Story" making fun of Sociology. "Officer Krupke we're down on our knees/nobody likes someone with a social disease..."
I probably shouldn't mention this, but... The best one I saw was a senior academic doing the work and then applying for funding after. This meant they knew a) how much it would cost, b) how long it would take and c) what the results would be. From a funding source's PoV, this academic was a genius: These projects would always come in at cost, slightly under time and the predictions were perfect. Because of the seniority of this person, funding would be given with very few questions. Once granted, the funding would actually be used for other research that would itself be "officially" funded by a later application when completed!
That's actually a genius move. He eliminated having to constantly balance when applying for grants between novel ideas, but not too novel to risk failing the project and losing everything, including reputation. He gets to earn his salary, live stress-free and do the research. I applaud this academic.
@@BH-2023 Not really, they're just doing all the work before they know if they're going to get paid for it. Most people would rather get paid earlier based on a research proposal if that's an option, this person is happy to get paid once they have done all the work and things are more certain. This approach has a cost (taking financial risk and managing negative cashflows for research) but clearly it's built trust over time with funding sources which may be a better situation for the researcher on balance.
@@BH-2023sounds more like a ponzi scheme than a pyramid scheme. in a ponzi scheme, you accept new investments to pay out your previous investors. you're constantly indebted to someone; you just keep shifting that debt around.
@@harleyspeedthrust4013: Read about what a ponzi scheme actually is -- because you give better-than-market returns, ponzi schemes always have to be increasing the new batch of suckers. Eventually they run out, and collapse, or the schemers disappear. Arguably it's a kind of kiting.
I would add to this list: 1) The literature review or prior work sections of papers are mostly about stroking the ego and boosting citation counts for the people who are likely to peer-review your paper. They are more likely to accept your paper if they see some of their own being cited and praised. And if you miss a reviewer's main papers, they will often give you, as part of their review feedback, a list of papers you need to cite if you want your paper accepted. 2) Minor conferences (with none or only partial peer-review) are just a way to get your institution to pay for a holiday. They mostly tend to be located in places like the Caribbeans or southern Europe. 3) Given that the objective is to publish as many papers as possible, every chunk of research work (whatever it might consist of in your field, like a new algorithm, a new math derivation, a big experiment that was conducted, etc.) will be divided up in as many pieces as possible to milk it for as many individual papers as possible instead of producing a single much more substantial paper. When doing a lit review, you will often have to cobble together several very repetitive papers from the same authors to get a complete picture of what they actually did. 4) Maybe not applicable to all fields, but I suspect it applies to most. Nobody understands statistics. There are dozens of statistical tests that can be used to tell if some results are significant (i.e., not due to random chance or some extraneous factors), and each of them are based on very specific assumptions that no one really pays attention to. Most people just try out a bunch of them, arbitrarily, until they get one that says that their results are significant.
LMAO you are so right about all this. I was introduced to point 3 when my PI was talking about submitting JUST the study methodology to a journal and that petty shit blew my mind.
Argh I hate 1) so much. One, uh, anonymous reviewer asked me to cite one of their findings in our introduction section. Which is fine, except I've already cited their paper in our discussion section. Did they miss that in our reference, or are they asking us to mention the same results TWICE in both the introduction and discussion? If you love your paper that much, just get a full page ad for chrissake.
My father and a group of his peers invented a professor to cite on their papers. They'd invent fictional references for the fictional prof, cite him as an extra citation on non-controversial items, and then track how these cites spread throughout papers in the field (communications). Turns out it's rather common to blindly copy the cites from another paper without even checking that they exist. Saves a lot of time, I guess.
That was probably before the internet? I can't imagine putting a reference without checking it with Google Scholar first :| (even really really old ones)
I recently came across a systematic review where the author of the paper mis-cited their own study, claiming it studied a particular research question with a particular methodology, etc. This author literally did no such investigation, cited their own paper several times for this fabricated study. This is a severe case, but I’m shocked how frequently I check citations and what the author claims is not even remotely close to what the paper they cited actually says. So your story doesn’t surprise me sadly.
@@nickmurray9193 Referee(s) of the paper are supposed to check such things. If they don't they are not doing their job - this is then a fault of the journal. This is why we have reputable journals with good editors who pick referees carefully and not-so reputable journals that will publish anything as long as they get paid for it. In any field people know whether the journal is good or not and they judge people based on that.
I worked at a university in a non-academic role and was shocked to find that 40% of our medical research grants were skimmed by the university as "admin fees" because the university was primarily a profit-seeking business. I also came to the conclusion that papers were written primarily because papers had to be published (though occasionally a paper would turn up that was actually game-changing) and that journals accepted mediocre papers because they needed papers to publish.
Spot on with the publication economy. Publishers exploit authors for their products, and then milk the customers, and those are the same people, depending on access to literature and on getting stuff published. So Publishers essentially strangle academia and milk the tax office, while achieving around 130% return on investment, which is quite obscene for print media. Overhead fees, yes. True. But at least here, universities are public service, so it´s not because they are seeking profit. It´s because they are criminally underfunded compared to the political expectations placed on them. But instead of employing people and funding reliable structures for them to work and meet their goals, government is pushing universities towards third -party funding, to the point that now even basic functions only are possible through special funding. And that´s called "modern" and "efficient". And Universities, insanely, brag about their "high ratio of third party funding", as if it was a badge of honour instead of the mark of shame that it really is. Yes, Terry Pratchett got it right. If you want to know what academia really feels like, pay close attention to "Unseen University". It´s a lot closer to reality than most academics would like to admit.
@@AdrienLegendre theoretically, it's basically paying for space, utilities, administrative and legally services, etc. I'm practice, the grant overhead varies hugely from institution to institution and I doubt it's always actually all toward that in a break-even way, but it's also not wholly a scam.
When I started the PhD program the first thing I noticed was professors trying to sound smart TO ME. I started subbing a the local high school and I'm somehow this awesome high flying academic... And that's the day I realized no one in the world has any frickin clue what they're doing.
The one thing that was absolutely verboten in academia when I was there was saying/talking about needing money - at least around profs or tenured faculty. No matter how desperately poor we grad students/recent PhDs were, as we toiled away at our multiple adjunct jobs, it was understood that we were all supposed to act like money wasn't an issue or a priority to us, because we were so passionate and dedicated to our research. Pointing out how poor you were was also considered "gauche" and rude because it made the long-time tenured faculty around us feel uncomfortable. God forbid!!! When I taught adjunct in the US, the tenured profs in my department lived in fancy houses in the most expensive parts of town, while I could barely afford rent on my ghetto studio apartment. I remember going to dinner parties at their homes, where they'd talk about the new sailboat they just bought or renting a house in Tuscany for a year with the family. They could shamelessly flaunt their affluence in front of us, while we were supposed to just smile and pretend we weren't in a completely different social class than them. Disgusting.
The final act of selfishness from those boomer profs was to end academic freedom and actual science by mandating experimental injections to force everyone to virtue signal about pretending to protect their should-have-retired-decades-ago zombie shell bodies from the scary cold they heard about on TV.
This! Same! One of my bosses/former supervisors built himself this mansion in a fancy area and was evidnetly earning tons and tons of money. But he scolded me for implying I was just doing my poorly paid contract job for the salary and not because I found it so meaningful and important. Later he said at one of his talks that academia was a "vocation" for him. Never seemed to understand that all academics were not operating from the same financial base, even though he knew exactly what we were earning. Vocation my arse
I grew up with the idea that academic people were poor in general, just from whatever old books and movies I happened to see. I was surprised later (as a staff member not quite middle class) to find that some professors had "Beverly Hillbillies" lifestyles... some of them had their apppointment, some consulting, some property and investments, and for all I know a lot of debt. Some just lived in suburban apartments, I didn't really have a general view of this.
This is 100% spot on. One thing I would add is that these institutions are money making machines, but if you actually work there, they act like they are broke and there isn't any money to do anything.
@@mikeymullins5305 Nah, I work in industry now. If you have a compelling reason for why something is going to help you get work done they'll find the money for it. If something in the building needs to get fixed, they'll get it fixed. Most things under 10k are not a big deal for department budgets to swing without much approval.
Here's another, "The only reason my research ideas became popular is that I refuse to work with graduate students unless they are enthusiastic about using and promoting my branded approach." It's not even a secret really. The research that becomes trendy has little to do with its quality, practical value, or genuine contribution to a field. The popularity of ideas is almost entirely due to the sheer number of graduate students a PhD advisor supervises over the course of a career. In contrast, a professor at a small college could publish stellar research for decades, but without PhD advisees to carry the torch, the research has very little chance of getting noticed or built upon. It's a very intellectually incestuous arena.
'electric cars will save the environment' ' more tech is the solution' ' newly discoverd or improved material x will help us use less energy'. And a lot of research is blatantly unnecessary.
So, let's say a central website, where the research would be matched with probable projects for worldwide businesses /governments etc. would exist and match those two while bypassing the professors. Would that help? Similar as to how now you don't need the getekeepers in the book publishing industry anymore and can publish it yourself. Businesses accessing what they would need and out with the clerics and bishops of the academic world? Do you also have an idea as to why research papers lie dormant and dead stacked in some database? I find it very weird... 🙂
A lot of these apply in not for profit jobs too. It's the clash of idealism with the reality of how people behave in competitive social structures. Thanks for saying the quiet parts out loud!
this is honestly the perfect way to put it. Recently a minister in my country said that scientists waste too much money and in 2015 our PM had said scientists should self-finance their projects. Add to that the stupid wistful yearning and praising of/for the old times here and the public funding shitshow you basically have a country of 1.4bn with millions upon millions of brilliant minds either wasting their potential or going to a foreign nation.
tbh on the advice about employability, our lecturer gave us this, but said realistically the likelihood of going into our desired field was low, so he encouraged everyone to have a one to one meeting with him before end of the first year to talk about electives and core modules that we would pick for year 2 and 3. He was open about this and gave solid advice on career progression, not just as a linear path but the side steps you can take, the professional qualifications 9and if any elective provided them at uni) etc
This is awesome. Also, in many countries and areas, there can be a high volatility in jobs availability in 4 years. So a bad jobs market as a freshman may not be indicative of the situation at graduation
There is a difference in: - If you take this course you won't find a job (so I won't tell you, or I'll risk mine) - If you take *only* this course, you won't find a job (but I won't tell you, because I don't care about my students) - If you take *only* this course, you won't find a job (so I'll help my students with, how to handle the "only"-part of that issue, on top of the regular teaching) Happy to hear, you encountered someone who could have gone for #2, but chose #3 instead. That's a good one. Unfortunately #1 is still a situation that happens (and I think, was the one that point in the list was about)
I think this in generally known now. One of Brady Haran's channels did a video on this where several profs from U of Nottingham spoke openly about it, saying there are about 5% (IIRC) as many positions each year as there were qualified people graduating.
Some of this is because of our neoliberalized economy, where so much of the wealth is sitting in the capital holdings of the elites doing nothing, that we 'think' the number of jobs out there in many areas, including higher education, is naturally established by 'demand', but in fact this is far from the case. A proper redistribution of wealth and making higher education largely public (as it should always have been, as it is indeed the case in many other countries) would actually allow far more people to be professors in esoteric subjects, in addition to actually making employment far more about an externally, and often democratically, established benchmark rather than simply gunning to be the best person out of a million applicants who never bothered to ask themselves why there shouldn't be more jobs for everyone rather than trying to satisfy some boss' checklist.
Very smart. A lot of the faculty, especially in STEM, tend to tell you that you will have a job. They don't tell you that you still have to work on it some and understand that things are rarely as straight forward as they are in undergrad school.
On the "I wouldn't get my job if I applied for it today" front, when I was doing one of my campus visits for grad school, one of the professors said, "I wouldn't get into a program if I were applying for it today." He meant it as a compliment, but I know now I should have taken it as a warning. The elite overproduction is real. I'm glad there seems to be more information out there like this helping students go in with their eyes wide open. It's easy to tell yourself, "It's going to be different for me," but I know scholars ten times smarter and skilled than I am, and they're stuck in academic purgatory.
I got halfway through grad school before deciding that I would definitely be leaving it after I finished my doctoral degree. Every single thing you said in this video is true in my experience. So refreshing to see this level of honesty.
There's also the case in which you contribute to a work yet you don't get cited at all in the paper. It happened a couple of times with me as an undergrad. I didn't mind it that much, since I half expected to not be taken seriously as an undergrad. But it did make me lose faith in Academia, and I guess it's one of the reasons I didn't stay in it.
I find thoughts on authorship vary wildly; especially between older researchers and younger researchers. I worked as a tech during my masters and one of the people I did work for didn't include me as an author despite me running experiments for him, and then doing the stats for those data. His viewpoint was that my work didn't constitute an intellectual contribution. On the flip side, someone else from his same graduate class basically included everyone standing in the room while he worked on his experiment as an author. There are lots of cultural impacts that can shape these differing views on authorship, but I've found younger researchers are much more liberal with authorship with how competitive everything is these days.
In grad school, I showed my advisor something I had come up with as an undergraduate, and he acted completely unimpressed, but about 6 months later it showed up in a paper of his -- not a word of acknowledgement, of course.
Same here bro, I found out just the other week that a paper containing the results of my bachelor's thesis has been published but I'm not on the paper.
When I was young people would leave academia and come to work with us in industry, saying academia was too political for them. Most of us found this odd, as doing well in industry can be very political too. However, as the years have gone by, looking at academia from the outside, I'm really seeing their point.
Having been an academic who's now in industry, I can completely agree that academia is too political -- and in ridiculous, petty ways. When there's less pie to fight over, the fights get more absurd ...
I studied Film Science at a college in Norway, when the department head came in to brief us on career opportunities. We were of course all very excited. Then he said this: "You might be surprised, but you can actually get jobs with this education! Yes!" he exclaimed. "Like for instance a cinema director!" Everyone burst out laughing. There are less cinema director jobs in Norway than there were people in that lecture hall. It was a fun session. I think most people who study Film Science know what they're getting themselves into. Let's be real, it's pretty niche. On to other hand, I got a job based on that education really fast afterwards, believe it or not! :)
Never mind. At least unemployment benefit in Norway is more than what you get as a wage for doing an average income job in practically every other country.
It's perfectly valid to study a subject you're interested in and not just something you get a job as. What's really moronic though is if you're interested in the study but not interested in the job that comes out of it. For example, my room mate (thankfully only for a year... he never showered) was doing Japanese studies because he was interested in the culture (infer from that what you want) and wanted to learn the language. However with a degree like that, you will most likely end up in business, dealing with foreign relations - which didn't interest him at all. So he traded 5 years of learning what he liked for 40 years of a miserable job. On the other side of things, a teaching degree has very little to do with teaching, but if you like teaching you can enjoy that for 40 years after forcing your way through 5 years of mostly theoretical study.
I went into Classics because my parents had filled my head with old-fashioned ideas about what it meant to be erudite. About two years in, somebody (a graduate student instructor) finally told me that competition was very fierce for academic positions in the field. Their recommendation? Go into the legal profession. They use Latin words occasionally AND they actually make money.
That was a smart strategy of them to remove some future competition. You don't go into academia to make money. You do it to learn more about your favorite subject. Academia vs. Legal is apples to oranges, really. But if you need the money, and that's more important to you, that's very understandable.
With 2¼ Classics degrees it's something I thought about a lot - but I've also heard that law has at least a few of the same competition problems as academia and... I mean, their Latin is not good Latin. But it's also worth saying that the point isn't that a specialized degree is useless or doesn't translate into increased income; it's just that the somewhat better job you get isn't going to be in it
It’s unfair to tie the two together really. There’s no realistic expectation that a great researcher should be a great teacher. But it’s just expected. That’s bullshit. It’s a personality thing.
The issue is everyone wants a 6 figure salary, but universities will never direct that level of compensation toward instructors to exclusively teach undergraduates or med students. Not in this day and age and not when you can go on yoo toob and observe nurses and other fine individuals delivering cogent lectures on all levels of physiology chemistry and what not. Universities already have too much personnel overhead, salaries for chancellors, ombudsman's, community liaison's, administrative counselors, sorority affairs overwatch managers, on an on an on. They will always undercut salary to instructors. It's become kind of a quasi part time job. The pressure on faculty is to bring in big dollars-Lets say non hypothetically, a faculty member brings in in 12 million dollars over a three year period, the university takes 7.2 million of that in overhead cost. That faculty member is allowing the department to function and becomes its life line. It pays for the lights, the new equipment to teach the students and also foster collaboration with industrial clients. Teaching is but one facet of what a university provides to its students and the country. Look at china. They can teach fine over there. But they cant recreate the university think tank of the united states. Thats what they covet, but cant yet recreate..
Another one to add: ‘Our method is just a sham to guarantee the answer we wanted already’ I studied a humanities subject at undergrad and I was quickly shocked and demoralised by how all the ‘methods’ we were taught were just fancy ways of justifying whatever biases the academic had to begin with and reduced the world to the simplest answers without ever really gaining any insight
I really doubt that all of the basic, time-tested foundational methods (which are generally what’s conveyed in the course of a bachelor’s degree) of an entire subject are just empty sophisms…usually that’s reserved for research-level study!
That's because the humanities aren't hard sciences. You (or most people, anyway) can't really discover much of anything new in the humanities; you can just come up with a variant on some existing model or theory. And having a theory and then shaping the method to fit it is actually how theories work in the humanities. Because you can't test against nature; only against other theories. So you have to push a new theory of your own, and argue for it. Shaping your methodology accordingly is part of how you persuade the reader that your theory is good and probable.
@@TueSorensen Yeah. Neuroscience and evolutionary psychology is literal hard science that touches on everything that "humanities" tries to study. Guess which sciences are shoved under the embarrassment rug?
humanities are for people who want to take money, throw it in a garbage can and watch it burn, we have public libraries and the internet, get your humanities degrees' for free and for that matter, study as much hard sciences from the library and internet as you can and then go into the university and get credit for the knowledge you got on your own instead of paying 30k dollars-ish a year..."god damn bless america"--lieutenant Dan.
@@unwatchedspacebum I think it’s more than unconvincing to hold “the humanities” responsible for, or regard as somehow implicated in, the exorbitant cost of higher education in the United States - but because there are other, more concrete, and indeed more subversive explanations of the highly lucrative and frivolous operation that most universities have become, it’s quite the convenient scapegoat isn’t it? No education is worth up to a fucking quarter-million dollars, and the sooner we stop talking out the sides of our mouths about it, the better.
i have been literally openly saying all those things. i am overly honest. luckily, my supervisors tolerate it and try to boost my confidence and make me own up to my "success". i am lucky. others would eat me alive.
I spent a long time in academia. I have 5 university degrees, a PhD included. To say that I am deeply unimpressed by both the institution and the personnel who inhabit it would be an understatement. I agree with WF Buckley's remark that he would rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. Now more than ever.
Same here. Was not impressed by most. I would say the top ten things not to say all revolve around not outing yourself as religious or someone who isn't far off on the left side of the political spectrum. Even being a moderate was frowned upon.
Once we invited a journal editor to a nice conference we organized, all expenses paid with good food and stuff. Then we submitted a paper to his journal. When the answer came back, he said 2 out of 3 reviews were negative, but he'd tossed the negative ones away and sent the paper again to 2 other reviewers. When we said we couldn't do what r2 was asking, the editor said to just ignore what we didn't like about his comments. Moral of the story: I scratch your back, you publish my paper.
You earned my subscription. When I was going through my academic career, I always wanted to be a college professor. I loved the idea of getting to teach that sort of complex, high end content. What I slowly began realize as time passed, is that Academia has just as many flaws as other places and organization. However, the only difference seems to be that Academia puts a lot of effort into ensuring that they can never be held accountable for any of their mistakes. I had a Microbiology professor, and one day when we were talking in private I told him I wanted to be a college professor. The look and response he gave me, one of just sheer apathy and a look of almost pain in the guys eyes. He essentially told me in the nicest way possible that being a professor had it's ups and downs, After this video I now realize what he really wanted to tell me all along. I am a lot happier having used my degree as the credential tool it truly was to just create my own business, much happier now.
Dodged a bullet there 3/4 teachers will remain adjunct FOREVER. I moved abroad, so that even if I have to job hop . . . I get paid top rate. I have no regrets.
@@Logqnty now, you don't have to take my advice, but I will speak from my personal experience. Instead of being a professor, I went and started my own tutoring business. Now I can teach with the freely based around how parents want and I've found that teaching outside the control of the mainstream academic community has been liberating and enlightening.
I felt pretty abandonned and let down by my university. I quickly realised how much of just a money machine it was, and realistically worthless the degree actual is. This has not helped that feeling, but this is great content actually saying something about these things rather than just riding it out.
I swear to god, I graduated with a geology under graduate degree this last summer and it feels completely useless. Everyone is asking for experience, a degree is useless, and it feels like I can't get into any job prospects.
@@shawnjavery after a decade of working i have used my engineering degree a total of 0 times. I would ignore a couple of years of experience on job adverts and just apply, the worse is they can say no and if you can get some even unpaid short term work in something even close to the right field that will probably speak more volumes than a degree would. You just need to identify the desired skills within the experience you have.
Been there, done that! LOL. Some really appreciate it...I had both. One made me cry and made my life impossible, and the other took me as his last PhD student; even if he was not taking any more students due to retirement, he appreciated the banter!
@@yanis80 It is disheartening that disagreement is considered a banter. In an ideal world (of which I am allowed to dream about), it would be considered an intellectual disagreement: the person simply had a different point of view on the matter, which would hopefully shed more light onto the issue.
Choose your professors, choose your battles, and don’t go for a coup de grace. Make it incidental to grasping the larger subject area. But out of a lot of professors I only felt confident enough of both my position & my relationship to the professor. Always easier if I had already been discussing fine points before trying anything that sounds like an outright rejection of the alternative. I got a decade jump on a key area of my chosen field from such an ioen ended exploration of a mathematical analysis of changing technology driven by mathematical reasons And I parlayed that knowledge into an early career win when I solved a large scale accounting issue for a global bank. What I did reduced daily processing from 15-30 hours to 4-6. Ten years later that technology dominated its broad area of high volume data and processing in the major commercial products. Too much challenging and too little, are sub optimal at best. I have worked for people. But if they are focused on corporate conformity and a dislike of ideas not invented here, I will leave at the end of my contract, and will find greener pastures. An abrupt project cancellation can be painful. But I have already found good work so I know it is just a matter of time. I usually do not have to deal with HR beyond justifying my ability to contribute at a level commensurate with my past rates. My professional reputation and feeling of self worth aren’t on the line because a project got terminated. It’s healthier for everyone that way.
Actually, that action just reveals true nature of a prof. That person may be reasonable saying "ok, let's check this..." or show its true nature being ugly bastard.
as someone who went all the way through university until I saw reason and applied for a position as technician, I wondered for years why ppl who mostly start out as decent, intelligent persons, would so fiercly defend an institution that is exploitative, breaking their back and soul, while being, well, as you told. My feeling: People sacrifice so much to get where they are, and when they are there, they have hardly any other reliable options left. So what develops is somewhere between sunken cost fallacy, Stockholm Syndrom and a religious cult. Their perception of self depends on the illusion staying intact.
THIS! I wanted to drop out of grad school or change my major so badly "but you came this far" was all I heard... fast forward thirteen years & I was changing careers anyway. Student loans be damned.
My friend recently had his degree revoked. It happened after in his final year when he landed a university-arranged internship that turned into a permanent job after graduation. His boss there was constantly criticizing the quality of most graduates, claiming they lacked basic skills/wth are they learning in uni etc. My friend, would agree and offer detailed critiques of the university's curriculum/processes etc. This same boss, it turns out, sat on an industry panel that evaluated industry and acedemia as a whole. After talking to my friend, bosses public criticisms became more specific (though my friend wasn't named). Soon after, my friend received a letter and a meeting accusing him of defamation, academic dishonesty, and a lack of moral character. He initially dismissed it as a joke, but the reality hit him hard when him applying for new jobs started failing due to failed background checks on his education. Sometimes it's better to stay quiet.
@@一本のうんちoh my god, this was horrifying to read and I’m so sorry this happened to your friend. Having an entire degree revoked, after you’ve put in all that work…I hope he’s doing better now.
Working in industry on AI. Most common work task is reimplementing research. The number one challenge in my early career was not knowing which organizations actually deliver real results with the papers. Now it has gotten fairly easier due to tracking sites like paperswithcode, but on new topics this is still an issue. I would say that around 80-95% of publications are junk, nothing authentically new or even improved, just boilerplate papers. Maybe around 50-75% on most respected journals is total garbage. And the real issue is that there are very limited amount of publications on actually challenging topics, because mainstream likes hyped research. Also maybe because of gambling, a chance to get within the (semi-)big names if you got luck on the paper and topic.
I was warned by a coworker with more academic experience in my field that the hit rate for the grand claims in papers in our field is similar. I personally have a really high bar for my work, and the lack of rigor in “serious science” is pretty disappointing.
What I find is that the smaller engineering journals often have very high quality papers that work even though they get few citations. If something is done in a very prestigious journal though it is most likely false and doesn't work.
When I started in graduate school, I kept track of new publications. I long have stopped bothering with that. There is such a low signal-to-noise ratio in academic publishing that if you find something that works, it's pretty much by accident.
Seriously though i do wish that the part with "job opportunities" would be openly talked about. I was the first one to get into academia from my family, and i had the assumption that there would be a lot of good opportunities. The first semester we were even told which variety of jobs you could theoretically perform with said degree. But by the time i got my bachelors and started to consider working instead of getting my masters i was completely shook by the lack of positions and even MORE shocked by the income you would get. I have worked many partime job as a student, and it was really difficult to do so - i had to work during the night and attend courses at day. And most of those parttime jobs paid me more than fulltime jobs in my field. SAD. I probably would have gotten my degree anyway because of my love for the subject. But holy shit, i would have prefered to know the realistic outcome later on. My family were extremely mad and disappointed because they expected me to graduate and be able to provide for them. Meanwhile, i could barely provide for myself with the first jobs i gotten.
Before anyone embarks on a degree they need to investigate the supply and demand aspect for the course. When I was studying Chinese, my teacher was very bitter that she was deceived into studying teaching Chinese as a foreign language. All the demand was in teaching English, and only when she was graduating did she realise that the supply and demand curve for teaching Chinese as a foreign language was completely skewed to the supply side
Ha. This reminds me of my adventures with art university: 1. Everybody hates everybody else. There were groups of professors and applicants, that hated other groups. But they all fought together when the institution was at risk. If you spoke ill about the way things were done, you were an outcast. 2. Nobody said what is really important in job as an artist. And I musi say it's not your skills. The most important thing is who you know. Most important skill is the ability to kiss any high position as you can met and keep in touch. 3. Almost any art competition is won by a small selected few who are professors favorites. 4. Ability to talk bullshit is more important than manual abilities.
Ever since beauty became "subjective", art has become a secret language for the wealthy to exclude the uninitiated with. It's actually considered a GOOD thing now for your art to be hideous and awful, just so long as its in some complex and convoluted way that the right people can memorize and use to show off as a membership card to other right people.
Doesn't matter with art , no one gets successful or even gets a decent job . The lecturers are dirty , tired and poor shuffling from drunken exhibition opening to the next. They can't teach because they don't know and do not want to be found out. After you pierce the veil of art sucess there isn't much there either. Unsold works, debt and zero return.
@@silentrob668 Maybe they should create things people like, beautiful things made with skill, elegance, and intelligence, instead of crapping their feelings into a medium like a diarrhetic angry toddler. I like art, but most modern (post-modern?) art is a pathetic joke. And BORING. 'Oh, look, another critique of capitalism. That was super cutting edge in *1955.*'
Arts and humanities here. Here’s another unspoken truth: you really only need one semi interesting idea that you can reframe, paraphrase, rework slightly for the rest of your academic career
THIS. I'm a masters student in sociology and our department has an extremely prestigious professor who is considered the authority in her field because she came up with a specific concept that she has used and reused in much of her work. She's absolutely odious with her students, to the points of driving a few of them to absolute meltdowns, but she's untouchable because of the amount of money and prestige she brings that she obtained for coming up with that one concept.
@@rationalist7Nowadays, people usually won’t listen to you that much if you don’t have a degree. Which is understandable, as you need some sort of spam filter, but unfortunate for people with good ideas. But to be fair, if you actually have good ideas, you should still pursue education to make the best out of them.
Me too. The hardest part of my academic life was not just putting advisor's name next to mine on my papers but it was when I had to come up with ways to convince the advisor that the paper's original idea was actually coming from him (without him having done absolutely anything) so that he wouldn't gate the submission and/or my graduation. Sometimes I had to quietly undo his irrelevant edits to my papers in such a way that his ego is not hurt.
number 2 is why i cant get a job in academia. crazy that the institute that teaches / encourages 'critical thinking' doesn't want that pushed back on itself.
It's generally less that criticism against the institution isn't allowed (in fact in my experience, every academic I've ever spoken to is willing to smack talk their university at the drop of a hat), but that you don't publish said criticism in a public space. This is the same as basically every other work place and isn't unique to academia at all
@@epicmarschmallow5049 There's exceptions to both assertions. In the factory jobs and retail I worked no one gave a rip if employees gave frank remarks to outsiders. Also, I'm a historian, and historians overwhelmingly don't give a rip about other historians. We wouldn't even know what the other guy is saying about the college.
The physics uni profs at my uni had a workaround for the employment thing. They had a graph of every field they could get you in and how much they make. Then said you get that much because there are only 5 people employed there. In a room of like 1200 people, you can make your own estimates
Indeed. I attended several career panels when I was in grad school and listened to many people talk about their "really interesting and rewarding" work only to admit at the end that there were only like 5-6 of those jobs in the whole country. How was that supposed to help me?
@@sciencetypeperson2401 the constant lying of careers to trick the youth into paying Uni fees. There ain't jobs in desirable fields out of University for 95% of the students that put the work in. The qualification economy is completely fake, to the point jobs that don't need higher education and are better taught through apprenticeship and career experience now require asinine bits of paper that required none of the skills to acquire that the job needs.
Kissinger plagiarized this quote from S.I. Hayakawa who likely appropriated it from someone else etc. all the way back to some wag at the University of Bologna in the 12th century.
I'm a tenured professor. The least I have done on a paper is to provide the main ideas and supervised it very closely. I do not intend to ever put my name on a paper where I've not done significant work. Unfortunately, you're right: even in theoretical physics, and even for "big names", professors do in fact appear on papers despite not contributing very much. Now, the question I often wonder about is: why do we senior academics then have the moral authority to ask students to turn in their own work?
I think sometimes contributing your name is important. It's like a "seal of approval". If I'm looking a paper, and I see Max Tegmarks name on it... it's going to be worth reading. Why is that... well Max sets a really high bar. If Max's name was not on it... I would probably just go to the next one. Likewise.. if you put your name to a poor quality paper.. that reflects on you.
@@technokicksyourass If you contributed to a research paper, your name should appear on it; if not, your name should not appear on the paper. This is basic academic honesty. Moreover, the scientific ethos demands that we let independent and myriad minds judge for themselves whether a paper is of sound quality. "Seal of approval" is neither scientific nor does it uphold the highest standards of academic credit and integrity. We should look in the mirror--examine our own scientific compass--if that's how we judge whether a paper is worth examining.
@@YiZenChua senior professor or person who checked a paper deserves credit. Simple as that. I also use papers I write but assisted (and i use that term loosely as they tend to be less than competent) by a student to boost that student's reputation by giving them authorship. But if i also have a good medical case or series that I passed onto a younger student or doctor so they have something to write about, I expect to be given the courtesy of checking that paper and be named as a co-author. In medicine, we even give authorship to someone who just performed the histopathology reading of a case. Why is it such a big deal to so many people that they don't want to share credit?
@@itsgonnabeanaurfrommePrinciples and standards are important. Proofreading a page or two--or even the entire paper--is not the same as spending months analyzing, solving, checking, and re-checking. If we play fast and loose with standards and principles, we are punishing the careful / scrupulous / ethical and the hardworking.
@@YiZenChu I got my undergrad in Physics and you are just like the professors I respect and that shaped me greatly . It should be about the principles and standards. If life has taught me anything, it's that those who disregard such notions as "outdated" are only fooling themselves and all who seek their guidance.
The accuracy of some of your confessions is just eerie. Every applicant even for an assistant position is publications-wise just way better than me and I feel terribly guilty about it. A former student of mine hopped from position to another your years though he knows how to publish much good work on fancy topics, all of which I don't. Man, I was so relieved when he finally got tenured, I was close to handing him my chair and everything...
Several of these points are why I'm glad I was able to get through my masters degree really quickly. I got my bachelors degree from a university that didn't do research. All they focused on was education. When I moved on to my masters degree I got more exposure to how research is done at universities. I loved most of the people I was working with, but I hated the research environment. "Publish or perish" is a blight that has caused me to read all research with skepticism.
Even in the early 80's my course, which most thought was likely to lead to a job in the field, the actual numbers were about 30%. Most graduate jobs, are nothing to do with the degree. Later on a Uni suggested I write up my job (some very technical but industry changing maths) for a PhD. Great I thought. "So, who will be your supervisor?". Me, "what's a supervisor?". It became clear very quickly that not only did I think I was the only person doing what I was doing, it seemed I actually was. No one could supervise, so, no PhD. So, since then I've gone with "well, the only reason I don't have a PhD is that the Uni couldn't find anyone who knew more about it than me" :-)
Well, then that was probably a shitty university / department. There is nothing wrong of knowing about a particular topic more that the supervisor. In the end, the supervisor's rule is, well, to supervise, but the job has to be done by the PhD candidate who thereby demonstrates that he/she is able to perform research "independently".
I enrolled in graduate school after several years working as a chemistry technician, with the intent of pursuing a PhD. As soon as I saw the workings of academia from the inside, I switched to a MS and got out of there as quickly as possible.
in my freshman year in Fine Arts, they did tell us that statistically only two of our promotion would eventually work in the field. I felt weirdly relieved by that honesty
I can be pretty sure my late father (PhD in Mathematics) never had his name on a paper he didn't contribute to. I can be that sure because when I looked him up, he had only 1 paper with his name followed by 3 full books through a major college book publisher. He was actually in high demand and had a tenured position because his work was quite influential (his specialty was Sheaf Theory within Algebraic Topology, and his book was literally named "Sheaf Theory") I think he might have known John Nash of Game Theory fame because he worked in the same place, knew someone who directly knew Nash, and had a handmade copy of one of Nash's board games.
@@lordspongebobofhousesquare1616 Yes. Besides being a mathematician, he also was a Apple II programmer. When he died, he left his Apple II library (including the source code to the programs he wrote) to the Apple II community.
Yes, I have read that book, it is one of the best. Mathematics is not as bad as other domains, there is little of the gratuitous authorship. The papers have proofs so reproducibility is not in question.
I recently (last month) finished a PhD in Algebraic Geometry, and I don't think I've got the technical chops for academia. Your dad sounds like an absolute legend.
Tell me about it -- it's even worse if you're a student; I was a graduate student at university that rhymes with Hohns Jopkins and a semester into my graduate degree I realized I made a big mistake as I tabulated the loans I took out and measured them against what kind of value I was getting from the coursework (I felt I was rehashing everything I had learned in my undergraduate studies, not any more intrinsically and even less pragmatically). When I tried seeking more engagement and support and failed, I was vocal about it and it didn't win me any friends with the faculty. Over a decade later (and still paying those loans) I still feel validated; while professionally successful, I feel like I received more support through my military background than anything I gained from my graduate degree. YMMV, but in my experience, these top tier graduate schools put so much money into their reputation and not enough into providing the opportunities or experiences that would make their scholars successful -- they are only successful because they attract the best and brightest by this reputation, but substantively, they are lacking.
I very much feel that there should be a class on picking a college and majors taught in either AP high school, or first semester of college. DEFINITELY should cover picking a career that will allow you to pay off your loans.
That's basically the Ivy League. An aura of mystique surrounding a good, but not really excellent, education. Yale has been the #1 law school in America for decades. No grades, only a P/F system, and no one fails. Yale graduates are infamous for being, just, utterly ignorant about the practice of law. Often well-schooled in theories of jurisprudence and whatever the most recent 'social justice' garbage to fall out of the social sciences is, but totally unable to brief, argue, and win a case using actual law and governing precedent.
You tabulated your loans vs the coursework during grad school? Shouldn't you have done that before entering? Those prestigious universities don't attract the best and brightest. They attract recognition hogs and stupid people who don't know any better.
Interesting. In the UK, Oxford and Cambridge seem to deserve their reputation more, at least in my field (maths). I did my undergraduate in one of them, and then did my PhD in one of the strongest non-Oxbridge universities in the country. I discovered that the fourth year courses at my new university were pretty consistently covering the content I'd learned in my third year. I think the reason is because of the tutorial/supervision system, which means students get a lot more individual attention and mentoring than in other universities. Basically, in the first and second years, you can expect 3-4 sessions a week with academics from your college going through problem sheets, either on your own or in a really small group.
I am not in academics. I will read academic papers with much, much more scrutiny with this insight. Now I understand why my academic boss regards a peer reviewed paper just as reliable as some forum post at some random web site.
@@engineeringvision9507 My biggest issue with academic papers is that they don't have comment sections, even if it were limited to only other academics from the same field it would allow for direct visible scrutiny. If a video on TH-cam has issues or is applicable in another situation the uploader didn't think of then someone in the comment section will write about it, this isn't possible in a "no scrutiny please" system. The lack of comment sections is actually the opposite of what the spirit of science is about.
All you have to do is read them and you can decide if they are reliable or not. If you don't have any ability to discern reliability or validity based off reported statistics and information than you probably would find a forum post more reliable.
Never saying you couldn't be hired into your role today hit home for me as a web developer. I started web development in 1996. I had two years of college, a certificate in Novell Netware administration or something like that, and I was working with other people who had no related formal education. Because at the time there really wasn't any sort of thing at the time. At my last job as a web developer I was working alongside people with master's degrees and even a couple who had PhDs in some sort of computer science, data analysis or some other specific web technology or field. I was basically outclassed on paper by guys who constantly needed me to show them how to do some web publishing tasks like stripping variables or where to use and set constants or other things to avoid cross script injection or Dom manipulation things that pose security risks. Not to mention they needed me to show them command line, remote shell or scripted password hashing stuff all the time. My resume would be at the bottom of any pile if they went strictly on education certificates and credentials. But I can do just about any job involving web publishing or content management system dev or administration.
That's because you are effectively an IT administrator to help with custom web publishing, and they are clearly specialists in data science or machine learning. Their job description is not even remotely close to yours and vice versa.
Well aside from just formal education you do have a ton of work experience if you have been working since 1996, I figure that would count for a lot wouldnt it?
@@tetrabromobisphenol academia is highly disconnected with what the professional world needs. Academia is too focused on theory than what businesses actually need you to do. th-cam.com/video/kJFSczoWfy0/w-d-xo.html
Don't understand what you mean at all. Can you clear it up? Why do you feel differently about it after watching the video? Because it's "actually normal"? What's that got to do with you being "Aspie"?
@@nonyobisniss7928 "aspie" is slang for a person with aspergers. and we are generally (or at least i know i am) excessively honest. so the first bit in this video about putting names that haven't really done anything feels very weird. personally i disagree with the commenter and still see it as pretty bad
It’s right that putting the wrong names on your author list feels wrong to you. Because it is wrong. It’s blatant scientific misconduct and degrades the integrity of your research. An author has to bear the consequences (both positive and potentially negative) of the publication. Someone who contributed nothing cannot do that and thus should never be put on the paper. By gaming the rewards system of academia, you are undermining the integrity of science and the public trust in the publication process. Of course, many people still do this. Of the potential forms of scientific misconduct, fudging the author list to honour someone higher up is relatively mild compared to things like p-hacking or outright fraud. Which also happen a lot. But that still doesn’t detract from the fact that it is serious misconduct and you should never do it. You don’t need famous people on your author list to publish a paper. Ideally, your university and your national community should have a code of conduct that you can refer to when someone pressures you to put their name on your work, and a disciplinary process to enforce it. The Netherlands, where I work, recently released an updated code of conduct and moved towards enforcing an open environment that discourages unethical behaviour. There may still be difficult corner cases. But generally, you should put the rightful authors and only the rightful authors on your paper.
"Trendy applications" is an interesting term. I got a request from a journal once to reprint one of my conference proceedings papers - but they wanted the focus of their journal explicitly emphasized in my rewrite. This really did change the research just a bit - it was probably responsible for this becoming my most-cited paper to date.
This is simply the most honest, most explosive presentation I have ever seen. It speaks out loud on (almost) every issue that has been screaming in my mind for decades, and which I have used many opportunities, including public fora to speak about. Fortunately, I work in a governmental university and it isn't too easy to throw me out for speaking my mind. However, I am not much liked, to put it mildly, and even my better disposed friends keep hoping that someday I will grow out of my ‘juvenile’ outspokenness. I consider that the intellectual vitality of a civilization is very critically dependent on its intellectual honesty, and essentially every one of the 9 points you discussed are instances where we compromise on this honesty either by actually lying or by remaining silent when we shouldn't be silent. As the subterfuge continues, the quality of our output - not necessarily accurately measured in any index such as the h-index - will degrade, is already degrading. It will happen all around, everyone will be complicit, and if ever there comes a time to blame the academic community for letting things slide to this, everyone will escape blame. At the same time, we would have become a less resilient, less flexible civilization. This is how nations and superpowers decline, this is how entire civilizations will decline if the intellectual vanguard, the academia, itself begins to falter, and does not even notice. A natural outcome of suppressing honest calling out. When I took this job, it was for the primary reason that an academic job is the only one where you get to keep your soul. It's no longer true now, though it's still perhaps better than the corporate world of today. Perhaps some of us who are able to see what is happening should join hands and shout louder about the dangers. This may lead to movement, even if the numbers are very small. I would be happy to join and contribute.
holy shit, this comment makes me so sad. i was planning to pursue a career in academia for your exact reason, it feels like the only place where i get to keep my soul, especially compared to the corporate world. seeing this comment is making me really reconsider.
Yeah. It happens everywhere because it happens within. This is a trade-off world. It's just a matter of deciding which part of our life will get traded.
I contributed to one paper on layered goal orientated action planning. My contribution was fleshing out the core concept and proof reading. The dean attempted to strike me from the paper, himself being listed as an author, although he did nothing on the paper at all. I fixed it, but after that had zero interest in further research, given that publications were not only not required, but treated as irrelevant when it came to performance evaluations. It's a shame because I could have generated a huge amount of research output if I had been given some support. We can guess why I was not given any...
Excellent work. 1 more thing I would like to add is the proliferation of shortcut papers like bibliometric reviews, meta-analysis and opinion papers (where 20 so authors put their pieces in a single article). I'm ashamed to say that many academics especially academics from South Asia who have reached editorial positions publish only this stuff and put names of less accomplished faculty for all types of favours. The travesty is that these 'academics' have 50k citations but no academic identity. While there are a lot of 'publications' coming out there's no real 'research.'
@@andrearaimondi882 I agree. The problem is commoditization and indiscriminate usage and no check on that . There are finance faculty who are doing meta-analysis and publishing in Journals of Medicine. The spirit of research gets lost in the process.
So, things aren't just bad at my institution, but it's rather in the whole academic industry. That warms my heart and chills my spine at the same time.
College does a remarkably bad job of job training, my major was chemistry with a minor in computer science. What I got from college were a lists of topics: 1) those that I enjoy learning about 2) those that I didn't enjoy learning about 3) those that came easily 4) those that didn't come easily 5) ways that I can approach learning different topics if I needed to. Most importantly, I got methods to reason about data. What I learned from being employed is what people would actually pay me to do. No one would pay me to do anything dealing with chemistry or chemical instrumentation, despite having worked on programming for 2 different raman spectrometers. It turns out they would pay me to program GUIs and databases that generally supported business applications, financial transactions and reporting. As it happens, in doing my job I have to analyze and reason about data and often have to learn new topics. So I found my education to be very worthwhile, though just not directly applicable.
Regarding reproducibility in my field (astrophysics) - it depends. Experimental results are generally fairly reproducible because most data becomes publicly available relatively quickly (if not instantly as it's taken), and the data analysis tools for a given observatory are public from the get go. Where reproducibility stops being considered is in more modelling/theoretical results. In this case the codes used are almost always private and unique to each group, so you will have people saying "we fit the data and infer X" and nobody can check whether that is because of some coding issue/choice for instance, or because that is actually what the data is telling you. Another thing I would mention is that grant proposals are frankly a giant con. We always have to promise some giant breakthrough and then some. If you don't, someone comes along saying "in 3 years I will detect life on exoplanets" or something, and whatever bit of incremental work pales in comparison to that, so your application is immediately rejected.
@@bornatona3954 Astrophysics is dadgum awesome. Just don’t get into it Willy-nilly. Be a creative and a risk-taker to be in that field… don’t aim for being a cog. You’ll sacrifice some dignities in the short-term; but, if you have a passion for finding an answer to a specific question or questions, you can take quite the journey to get there. It would be nice to see someone take Jason Lisle’s anisotropic synchrony convention to other directions and apply that to the physics of black holes and the study of time… If you’ve got the math skills, that’s a fun idea. At any rate… this world doesn’t get it. It’s awesome to be able to search out that stuff. It is awesome to seek the rewards for that stuff. That’s being an artist and a pioneer and an investigator all at once. It is cool stuff.
As a soon to be PhD from an EU university, I agree with and have seen all of these. I have to add, though, that in my home country, where I graduated in Biochemistry, you better believe students were failing exams if they put in insuficient work.
Thanks for the video!! Been an engineering researcher for several years now at a pretty prestigious state school here in the US - I agree with many of the points here, but university criticism is incredibly important. It’s a shame that some folks face backlash from private institutions for being honest about systemic problems, and I think that talking about it “behind closed doors” is even worse… stand up for something that matters, obviously not advocating for anyone to commit career suicide but there are ways to do it to bring issues to light that deserve to be brought to light. Keep looking up!
A few years ago, I was temporarily expelled from my Masters in Education. Part of the requirements were attending four Practicums over 3 years. In the lead up to this, I had spent 10 years in the workforce, in a non-educational or academic work environment. My parents were successful entrepreneurs and employers who were VERY big on regular leadership coaching, communication and presentation skills, as well as inclusion and diversity training. I was also diagnosed at 8 years old with ASD and serious heart condition at birth, and had been through the ins and outs of the educational and disability system and their respective sectors. And while I knew going in I obviously didn't know everything (as nobody does), I was super keen to learn from industry experts and educators. They... HATED... me. And I mean... hated... to every extent that you can possibly imagine. I sat at the front of every class, wrote an insane amount of notes, and asked questions when things didn't make sense. I networked, did every assignment on time, and even had three jobs lined up before I graduated. I was essentially a model student. Then why was I expelled? A few reasons... 1) By asking innocent basic questions to better understand the material, a few faculty members thought I was questioning their knowledge. None of my cohort (or student union) thought this. 2) Several faculty members verbally bashed their workplace during classes. Concerned, I reported it, and was reprimanded for "disrupting the culture of the university". 3) I asked my Practicum Mentor for a single day to attend a small job interview (you know, to earn money to eat, pay rent and stay alive), was approved, and then reprimanded by the Practicum Co-Ordinator for not making my classes a priority. 4) On one occasion during peak COVID season, I told the faculty members I felt uncomfortable forcing elementary school students to share food during recess. I was told I was being difficult and argumentative. 5) I received contradictory feedback from two professors in the same day - one thought I was the best teacher they'd seen all year, and the other thought I was the worst teacher they'd seen all year. My teaching was viewed by both teachers at the same time. It ultimately comes down to perspective really, and philosophy. The university sided with the negative professor. 6) Lastly, and most importantly, the Co-Ordinator of the Master's Degree said verbally, and I quote... "From my experience, people with disabilities shouldn't become educators. They slow everybody else down." This woman had a Ph.D. It was weird because this quote didn't mesh well with her thesis on inclusion and diversity in children's books. Despite there being zero human characters, the Very Hungry Caterpillar is 'apparently' a racist book. She also had a son on the Spectrum. We sued the university, provided evidence, there was an investigation, and it was an easy win. I was allowed back within the university to continue. But by then, I was so disillusioned with academia, I quit completely. I wasn't 20 when I went through this. I was 29.
@Karl with a K Sorry, just because academia is pretty fucking shit doesn't mean business gets to be the honorable hero now. Both are bad for different (and frankly many of the same) reasons. It also doesn't mean that not listening to actual experts within academia makes you a very smart boy, either.
@@karlwithak1835 It is simply untrue that "no business recognizes the work of academics as worth looking at". In the pharmaceutical industry we interact with academics on a regular basis.
This sort of academic politics was a big factor in why I ended up leaving grad school for a change of career path. In a similar vein, I learned that you don't talk out loud about too many particulars of the project you're working on before publication. Especially not around people from other departments whose labs work on similar topics. Collaboration with others outside your own lab is essential to bring in the right set of skills and expertise, but that needs to be kept to a very tight circle of trusted colleagues, preferably colleagues who are relatively disinterested in your topic of research beyond the specific technical aspect they're helping you with. One might naively suppose that two labs working in similar areas of study could have a lot of insights and perspectives to share that would mutually advance their understanding of the matters they're studying if they were to compare notes. But in fact, those labs are competition, and tipping your hand might give them a chance to scoop you.
Some research groups like to host meetings associated with specific scientific data and their applications. Beware because it is mainly for harvesting everyone's ideas for their own Ph.D..'s publications and they will not collaborate! Also, you may be eager to collaborate by sharing some data gathered during your project. You forgot to check back on it or get no response and a year later that guy produced 4 papers with it, without offering co-authorship or project acknowledgment!
I once had a part-time job tutoring a Biology grad student in the R programming language because he didn't want to work with a lab that had those skills.
@@LightningSpritesJetsWizard Could be worse... I just wrote a collaborative grant proposal just to find the other person submitted it himself without me on it. They won the grant.
Found this very interesting. I'm not an academic but when I was a student I had a lot of involvement in activism and working with more radical academics, the UCU (the main trade union for academics in the UK), and casualised hourly paid lecturers. A lot of these ring true in terms of the criticisms we had of academia, especially as it became increasingly marketised and as rankings based on publications led to the kind of status competition and gaming of the system you talk about. The 'don't criticise the university publicly' one really hits home and I think combines with the fact that academics tend to be on short term contracts and tenured positions are more competitive and less frequent. At my university short term contracts allowed a de facto purge of more politically active academics and union militants, especially in the English Literature department which used to be a hotbed of criticism of the marketisation of the university. One prominent tenured academic was suspended, for such transgressions as excessive sighing in meetings with management, but that led to a major backlash. After that they realised all they needed to do was clear out the more troublesome junior staff by quietly deciding not to renew their contracts. Also whenever we as students did activism which called into question the university's PR image of itself, you could tell it really upset them and often led to massive overreactions.
4:38 absolutely true in cutting edge medical imaging research! There is so much emphasis on novelty and potential impact instead of developing something that actually works robustly across a large population. One of the main reasons I left. Some of my other reasons are also listed in this video.
Thank you for this video. Having been steeped in Academia for the vast majority of my adult life, I 100% agree with most of what you've said. It really does feel like the University system has somehow become duplicitous.
as far as your point about not being able to fail students, I think that depends on your university. I haven’t had any pushback when students have failed. I’m extremely thankful we can maintain some rigor in our program.
Same here. One of the things that makes it easier to fail a student (at least on the graduate level) is that people who fail generally fail spectacularly (failure to complete work, cheating, etc), so it's pretty easy to justify failing them.
All of this and more was why I left academia. I then wrote the book A Degree In Homelessness? Entrepreneurial Skills for Students to get students the things they need to succeed AFTER their formal education. I burned some serious bridges with that book! The title alone keeps me off of most campuses! Nice video!
I remember I was doing a thesis on a welding method that has just has just recently gained traction. So apart from a lot of patents there was not really much information or research to look at. I remember having two reputable academic books open side by side, one was a welding handbook and the other was a book about advanced manufacturing techniques. Both of these books said the opposite thing about the waste material from the welding method. I was so surprised, I am almost certain someone was just talking nonsense but I couldn't tell who. In the end I just went with the book that had the highest citation count, even though my selection process wasn't relevant to anything, I was just tired and had a deadline.
My folks were both academics. Dad was a math. professor (period after math. because it is an abbreviation😂,) mom was a neuroscience researcher at a university med. school (PhD in pharmacology.) I watched your video to learn what you had to say…and, yes, I recognize everything you put forward here. Regarding “students as customers,” yes, indeed. I actually was aware of this (because of my parents) during my undergrad in the late ‘80’s/early ‘90’s. My second to last semester I did very little work, skipped class a lot. In the end, I had a solid D average. I received a letter from school telling me that I was kicked out for low grades. As it happened, I was getting ready to go on a semester abroad, which was an exchange program between my university and the college in Europe I was supposed to attend. Tuition, on my part, had already been paid. I also only needed 3 more credits to graduate, even with the poor showing that second to last semester, and had already been working in my field of study for 3 years, so I had loads of contacts and a line on an entry level professional position. I wrote a letter to the administration pointing out these things, that I had already paid for my last semester (which was 12 hours,) that I only needed 3 hours to graduate, and that I already had a job waiting for me which did not require a degree in anything to accept. I said that it would not benefit the university to kick me out, it would not hurt me at all, and even with my horrible showing the previous semester, I still would have an acceptable GPA to graduate. I left for my semester abroad as planned, without having heard from the administration. I told my friends who also went on the exchange about how,I had been “kicked out of school” for grades because I thought it was funny. They were all shocked and stressed about it. I explained to them that the university is a business and told them what I had written in my letter to the administration. They were astonished and dubious about whether they would decide in my favor because it did not follow the stated rules. I said I wasn’t worried. Those of us who were set to graduate together did so after completing our internships. I along with everyone else. We all laughed about it. They could not believe it worked out the way it did and asked me why I was so certain it would. I said, “both of my parents work in academia. That’s how I knew.”😂
@@itsgonnabeanaurfromme you missed my point entirely. I do not deny that I was privileged in many ways. My folks were very smart and pillars of our community. They were also terrible parents.
80% true in France too : Universities are state subsidized so we have leniency to fail a bit more, but not as much as would be required (like 3 year students are almost ignorant of their field), and the job market is more advertised than what you describe (to the point we had an entire module on job prospect during the very first semester of university). The rest is pin point accurate.
As someone who worked in academia and still does lecturing and some supporting research at a "prestigious uni" in Switzerland, I can fully agree with most points here. I never had any interest or ambition in having a career at uni - I just did stuff I enjoyed and some people seemed to like it and give me a PhD and jobs in research and lecturing. It being Switzerland the salary is bombastic, so I just followed the interesting bread crumbs and I have my own company now. I was lucky enough to have an amazing boss who is the most integer person I have ever seen, even after a decade of closely working with him I kept being impressed about he really is "all of it". A brilliant researcher and a really kind human being who stands behind his students and his team with all his might and defends them even against "higher powers" if the occasion arises, without flinching. Absolute unicorn. The only point that (luckily) doesn't apply to my case is the "job prospects". Our engineering students basically always find employment pretty easily and on a large scale. I have friends in Formula 1 R&D, Medi-Tech, consulting software engineering, and even banking. It seems ridiculous to me how far the reach seems to be, so I don't need to tell them about bad prospects. At least not until now, fingers crossed.
Also helps to have a prestigious uni name backing these students when they go to search for jobs. It's not always guaranteed even with top grades if your university is midgrade or lower.
@@Blaisem yes that is absolutely true. having a "top 10 of the world uni" diploma helps. although as a side note, i find these rankings pretty silly, a shame they even exist... the "net bad" they do outweights the "net good": all unis start chasing the parameters (such as "publish till drop dead") that get them higher in the rankings instead of focusing on good research AND good teaching. as being a researcher and lecturer at such a "top uni" i vote for stopping this ranking nonsense... there are people far smarter and more skilled than me at "unknown" unis. this one just happened to be close to where i grew up...
In my field in Computer Science, papers often leave out edge cases, because they want to sell their own implementation commercially that contains fixes for them. You can't simply implement what they described in the paper and then use it in a product, it'll break.
For my Political Science dissertation, my professor (the head of the department) just told jokes and screwed around all term. It was the last thing you did before you graduated and the whole class was one paper you did independently, so I didn't think anything of it. Half way through the term, he started joking about how the school only kept the major available because they were mandated to. I asked why we don't have classes on some of the programs for campaigning like we'll need to know for that work and he answered "who's gonna pay for that? 🤣🤣". It then sunk in how useless the degree was I had pursued and I realized his layed-back attitude was because he didn't have to pretend to care with us like he did for his other classes. I got a field director job after college and asked how much my degree factored into my hire and my campaign manager answered "zero". College was a total scam and complete waste of my time. I 100% regret it.
A colleague and I were just talking about putting names on papers with no contribution. I remember my first lecture in my field. The lecturer said look to the person on your left, look to the person on your right. One of you might work in this field. Sadly, now we cannot get enough people in our field.
I got to know a young lady that used to work in a cafe that I visited. She was about to go to university to study physics at the time and we got into conversations about physics and engineering, which is my own speciality. I happened to see her over Christmas, now in her final year. It was pretty clear that she hadn't received much in the way of career guidance on what opportunities a physics degree offered. As you said, the answer is not much on its own, but it is a gateway to a huge variety of options, nearly all of which require at least one additional qualification and/or stepping stone to reach the end point. I spent a few hours just listing all the options for physicists that I had come across during my career which has been focused within industry with strong links to academia. I am sure that my list is incomplete and it only lists the first level of pathways, but I am baffled that there seems to be a dearth of information to assist graduates on how they can use their academic investment to create fulfilling careers. For what it is worth, here is the cursory list of career options open to a graduate physicist that came to mind for my young friend, nearly all of them involve another degree or postgraduate qualification. It is very 'top level' but more than her university careers advisors provided. The next step is to select those topics that are of interest and then expand knowledge about them by activities such as attending symposiums and trade shows. GRADUATE PHYSICIST TECHNICIAN SALES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (Computer Science Degree) DIGITAL TWINS FINANCIAL MODELLING ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING SCIENTIFIC CIVIL SERVICE RESEARCH ADVISER LAW DEGREE PATENT ATTORNEY (BA) MARKETING DEGREE MARKETEER PUBLICATIONS BUSINESS DEGREE ( MBA ) INVESTMENT ANALYST STARTUP OF OWN BUSINESS MEDICAL SCIENCE DEGREE (MSc) MEDICAL PHYSICIST MEDICAL DEGREE (MD) GP OR SPECIALIST ACADEMIA (MSc & PhD) RESEARCHER LECTURER INDUSTRY TEACHING (PGCE) TEACHER TRAINER INDUSTRY R & D PROJECT MANAGEMENT MARKET ANALYST FIELD SERVICES
What stupid comment from someone who isn't a physics grad. And your really going to suggest LITERALLY DIFFERENT DEGREES as potential career pathways? My god you can say anyone with an undergrad in arts or science can do any of that. You fucked up by picking engineer because you're too confident about eng. to apply theory in the field as a real researcher if someone hasn't already done the calculations and the trial and assume all the risk.
@@Juxtaposed1Nmotion You really need some help with your medical condition. I have personally observed physicists follow career paths in all those areas over the course of my working life. As for being just an engineer, I have several further degrees in various subjects, including a doctorate in mathematics. I am also member of the UK government panel that assesses the progress of quantum photonics research - conducted by post doctoral physicists. You sound like just the sort of physicist that we try to remove from the system because they waste resources.
@Certyfikowany Przewracacz Hulajnóg Elektrycznych Engineers quite often end up doing applied physics. An example that springs to mind is the design and fabrication of SPAD arrays which was executed by engineers, because the physicists didn't have the skills to convert the physical principles into reality.
@Certyfikowany Przewracacz Hulajnóg Elektrycznych I regularly review applied research proposals from physicists. It is uncommon to come across submissions that have any sort of project strategy and even rarer to see a coherent risk register. The amount of effort reviewing the literature for existing alternative solutions is usually inadequate. I find most of the mathematics presented to me in these submissions fairly easy, although I do have to read the appropriate literature for the physics. My supervisor was an engineer, he ended up as professor of mathematics in the same college. Imperial, London.
@Certyfikowany Przewracacz Hulajnóg Elektrycznych Well, I think we have come full circle here. The fact of the matter is that a physics degree is a very useful discipline that opens up a whole world of opportunities, but not in theoretical physics without a lot more work. As I stated, the list I presented is a record of what I have observed. I am pretty sure my supervisor didn't look down on engineers, he often had discourses with the leading applied mathematicians of his day. The line between applied mathematics and engineering is very fuzzy in many areas. I don't understand why physicists conducting applied research imagine they should not be subjected to the same constraints as say, applied mathematicians, when it comes to the disbursement of funds derived from taxation. They are no more entitled to public funds than any other discipline and those that approve their research have a duty to the taxpayer to ensure funds are spent in a way that is beneficial to society. In my experience, only a small number of researchers deserve a 'carte blanche' and this is invariably provided by payments made by institutions such as the Royal Society in the UK. I hope that you found good use for the skills that you acquired during your PhD studies and that you look back on your time in academia with fond memories, as I do.
I once said in a LinkedIn comment that the institution I worked on has awful IT infrastructure and writing code is a headache unless you just use your own hardware. Got an email from the dean and a visit from our marketing department (that Institute has one). I left 2 years later, the IT situation was completely unchanged with the one exception of finally upping our mailboxes to 10gb from 2.
I'm an admin assistant in a research lab at one of the US's top Medical Schools. Nothing has drained me of compassion and empathy faster than working with these people. Nearly the entire lot of research scientists are a bunch of overgrown children, whining and pissing themselves that they haven't won a prestigious award. (The number of scientists who want to win a Nobel Prize and it being their SOLE motivation is beyond depressing.) These people don't care about you, your health, your family. They don't care about making the world a better place. All the care about is making money and getting fancy titles. It's disgusting. I have a hard time blaming anti-intellectuals for not trusting science.
The first time I followed my integrity to demonstrate that a student had plagiarized, I was overwhelmed with how much work this created for me administratively to prove this plagiarism. Even though the follow-up was not done by me, the burden of proof was tremendous on me. It turned out that I was the third professor to go through this process with that same student, which resulted in the student's expulsion - but I knew none of that when I made my own case, given that the record was confidential. Sadly, I now think twice before I choose to accuse a student of plagiarism, knowing how much time this process eats up; but I still need to do this when I am faced with plagiarism, because otherwise such students may eventually become my colleagues...
It should require some work on your part if you accuse a student of plagiarism. That is a serious accusation. Likewise, this is something you should make the effort to address. It is a serious breach of ethics. Lastly, your school handled it correctly by expelling the student for multiple offenses. I'm really not sure why your whining about having to do your job, or why people have been up voting your comment.
@@daithi1966presumably a person is already 100% utilized doing their job, and “doing the right thing” should not cause you to have a significant amount of overtime. There should be serious burdens of proof, but burdens of paperwork isn’t really the same thing
@@daithi1966 The guy obviously did something not much people do because it is very strenuous. If the process was simpler or if people had more time to give to such matters, more people would do it. Telling somebody they are whining when they did the right thing will not improve a disfunctional situation.
I grew up in a household with an academic parent (and went to innumerable department parties) so I have an inside scoop behind the curtain. One thing you can add to the list... professors can't dock a student's grade for poor writing or tell a student they write badly, no matter how atrocious their grammar and style are. When I was in high school, said parent was grading a stack of final papers and I grabbed a few that were already graded and started reading them. It was some of the worst writing I'd ever seen, and I wasn't even an adult yet. I turned to them and said "Your students can't write." and they replied, "I know."
It's amazing, depending of the field, how many just assess content. I write my rubrics that explicitly assess grammar and punctuation to ensure students understand that, without it, their content won't make sense. Unfortunately, this is tied to the 'don't fail students' angle many universities push that another commenter mentioned earlier.
There seem to be declining standard in eduction. I recall going through the education system (still am), there seem to be to be a lack of purpose, such as "why am I learning this" and general lack of structure from the teachers. It's like playing a chess match, except this person could randomly change their rule to however they please, how is this right? Then, as we seen after the warring state period came to a conclusion, the system for exchange was all over the place; there need to be a standardize expectation. I'm not advocating for the same debacle we witness with the standardize test, but it's also to a degree necessary. It's frustrating because not every person is getting the same quality of education. Rather one agree or not, certain teachers and professors are simply a matter of fact better. It's in my frustration that it can feel like a roll of dice at times. How am I purpose to be purpose, to say I have an associate or bachelor when I feel the most undeserving of them all.
That point about not failing students who don't do the work at all is upsetting. I got a B.A. back in the 1970s. After I retired in 2015 I wnt back to school to work on a second degree. Studying is important to me. I always do the readings. I take part in all discussions no matter how tired I am. I always study hard for, and pass, the quizzes and exams, and work hard on my essays and other assignments. So, the lowest mark I ever get is a B. I figure I deserve that B, based upon my work. The thought that someone might sleep through lectures and scrabble an essay together at the last minute and barely pass the quizzes and get a B is infuriating to me. Education, for me, is about learning. Who is learning in such a situation? In my opinion you learn by doing the work, not by just living through the course.
Spectacularly true. Students as customers has become the rule and standards usually in name only at many institutions. Some wonderful exceptions exist. The job market comment is also spot on. This video should be required for all grad school applicants.
As a PhD dropout, I never got all that deep into academia, but I was there long enough to know everything you said is completely true. I appreciate you making this video. The general public has very little understanding of how many issues there are in academia, particularly in Science and Math. Hopefully more discussions like this can happen in the future.
Open Secret: There is a departmental hierarchy. Some is dependent on the University perhaps a department is well respected or known, other rankings seem to be more universal and these departments will always have a lot of power. If you aren't in one of those departments, your department will not cross them and your head may even be very obsequious to anyone in those departments.
For that last one, at least in the US that "trendy application" is part of the Broader Impact section required in NSF proposals. BTW, I had a chemist fried tell me that it's standard practice to report the best yield out of multiple trials, even if it's way off the average value.
Much of the content in this video was made clear to me after a year or two in undergrad. It’s a big part of why, after finishing my degree, I pursued a tech job instead. I enjoyed physics and still love learning about it, but I did not want to play the politics game.
I had two coauthors whose only reason to be on my paper was they partly funded my stay in an American university. Later in my tenure track elsewhere, I was required to get signatures of my coauthors on what they contributed and those two refused. I understand why but I could get into trouble because of them. Luckily, the dean understood the situation when I explained what happened.
Unfortunately, double blind also doesn't work if the field is small. I can identify the research group based on the experimental section of their paper
Self-citations should be temporarily anonymized for peer-review. The same for grant information etc. But in some fields, this does not help either, because the community is so small that people know each others’ research anyway.
"I did do nothing for the paper" I'm just writing one with a PhD buddy of mine and we'd actually be grateful if one of our supervisors would be on the paper for less scrutiny in the peer review process. But they don't want to be on since they only provided supervision. Fun reverse problem! Edit: Paper is published, didn't have any problems in Peer Review, seems we did a great job! (Or the reviewer just didn't care)
Honestly, I feel this. I literally want one professor's name on my paper even if he doesn't do anything. Why? Because he's famous, and having your name next to a famous person's name is a leg up.
I am a soon 4th-year Ph.D. student, and although I have not been in academia for a long time, I totally agree. Fortunately I will leave academia after the Ph.D., hoping to find better prospects.
The first point is something I used to wonder after my experiences with certain people but have never got a concrete answer. Interesting to know this is common in Academia.
I wonder, is there any self-made scholar out there, who is so passionate about finding his answer, and does his research at home, without being attached to any university, and still be able to publish his paper in a recognised academic journal?
Never say never, but chances are only the most desperate academic journal will accept that, which can actually be harmful. Or you can do what Don Knuth did, and approach a commercial publisher and have them publish your (academic paper) commercial research for you.
Most scholarship is grounded on cooperation, and most cooperation occurs in places with more specialists (aka universities). Doing research without being attached to a university is pretty pointless and counter-productive. If you were that passionate, you'd generally just bite the bullet and get on with it
@@epicmarschmallow5049 there a lot of subjects in this world are more to theory, which don't require much experiment and application but thought process, eg: physics, mathematics, economy. And there are a lot of people in this world are already financial free.
This is kind of a cheating answer, but there are lots of retired academics doing this. Then, there are lots of folks working in the tech industry that publish in ML/AI, both on behalf of the company or doing fun projects with friends who most likely are attached to universities. Now someone who is entirely working alone without at least a history with the university is quite rare if for no other reason it's just really difficult to pick up and learn the topic deeply enough to do publishable work and learn the ins and outs of academic publishing. It's not entirely clear to me what that person's incentive would be to publish in an academic journal when they could put things on arxiv, or a blog for that matter so you could have a more robust discussion than you probably would with a peer reviewer.
My advisor let me in on the "can't fail students" aspect. He was flustered one day and I asked what was wrong. He said something along the lines of, "I have this student who just won't do their work, but I can't fail them because my boss has warned me that I fail too many students. I can't help it if the student literally will not submit work, yet it is somehow my fault.." I learned a valuable lesson that day.
And yes, the student passed the class.
In my grad school, a “B-“ seemed to be the worst grade any professor ever doled out. I appreciated it, actually.
But I never heard of anyone who didn’t do the work.
If the failure rate for any lecturer is low i.e. very few consistently fail from his/her class (in comparison to the average for that subject), then that lecturer should never be dismissed since there should(!!) be well-known systems already in place to protect against this. An unfair dismissal tribunal is an obvious option, though by then, that may be too late to reverse any dismissal - unless reinstatement is (justifiably) forced(!!).
On the other hand, clearly, if a lecturer has a consistent higher-than-average rate of failures - for that subject - then the fault very probably lies with the lecturer's teaching method. 'Standard steps' would be expected to be followed before any action is taken.
--> Seems basic common sense 101.
@@ChrisM541 but if they don't fail people unless there's no way around it doesn't that mess up the average? Like if a prof actually started grading accurately then wouldn't that make them look bad? It really shows the whole problem with the comodification of education
I was a biomed student in Ireland...they were not afraid to fail students or give them shit grades
Great material, Andy! I would add to this list:
1. I hired you because you are docile and you will keep on writing papers using a method I developed 20 years ago,
2. You are a cheap labor who is only as valuable as his/her publication list,
3. The only purpose for us to go to a research conference is to dance, get drunk and forget about our jobs,
4. Our methodology has become obsolete but I only have five years left till retirement so let's keep on going.
Your conferences have dances???
@@enginerdy If you're invited to the right parties, all of them do.
Omg yes.
@@flibbertygibbette no. Not really. But I'll say many are just gossiping parties to me
Lol
10. You typically get a job in academia based on networks, rather than pure merit of your work. Having an advisor who gets invited to give lots of talks to various places increases your chances a lot.
To be fair, thats the case for everything. People who make the hiring decisions are much more comfortable taking on someone if they have a reference from a party they know and trust. Merit is great, but merit on paper doesn't make them feel as comfortable when deciding who to hire. When you're compared to someone who may look worse on paper, but comes recommended as a holistic "person" and "good worker/person" from a trusted source, its a lot easier emotionally to go for the recommended option by a close friend/coworker you trust rather than the person who is better on paper.
I bet that's why social sciences are such a bubble too. Have an unpopular view point or research something problematic and you're frozen out.
I get this, I will not pretend that the only reason why I can do a MPhil right now is because my final year project supervisor recommended me to his collaborator on a collab project where his collaborator preferably want someone who already is familiar with my FYP supervisor. That being said, I’m still working extra hard because I want to do it
explains all the activists
@@chriswright6245 Absolutely! Social sciences are so apt to controversy that there's literally a showtune in "West Side Story" making fun of Sociology. "Officer Krupke we're down on our knees/nobody likes someone with a social disease..."
I probably shouldn't mention this, but...
The best one I saw was a senior academic doing the work and then applying for funding after. This meant they knew a) how much it would cost, b) how long it would take and c) what the results would be. From a funding source's PoV, this academic was a genius: These projects would always come in at cost, slightly under time and the predictions were perfect. Because of the seniority of this person, funding would be given with very few questions.
Once granted, the funding would actually be used for other research that would itself be "officially" funded by a later application when completed!
Isn't that... like... how a pyramid scheme functions?
That's actually a genius move. He eliminated having to constantly balance when applying for grants between novel ideas, but not too novel to risk failing the project and losing everything, including reputation. He gets to earn his salary, live stress-free and do the research. I applaud this academic.
@@BH-2023 Not really, they're just doing all the work before they know if they're going to get paid for it. Most people would rather get paid earlier based on a research proposal if that's an option, this person is happy to get paid once they have done all the work and things are more certain. This approach has a cost (taking financial risk and managing negative cashflows for research) but clearly it's built trust over time with funding sources which may be a better situation for the researcher on balance.
@@BH-2023sounds more like a ponzi scheme than a pyramid scheme. in a ponzi scheme, you accept new investments to pay out your previous investors. you're constantly indebted to someone; you just keep shifting that debt around.
@@harleyspeedthrust4013: Read about what a ponzi scheme actually is -- because you give better-than-market returns, ponzi schemes always have to be increasing the new batch of suckers. Eventually they run out, and collapse, or the schemers disappear.
Arguably it's a kind of kiting.
I would add to this list:
1) The literature review or prior work sections of papers are mostly about stroking the ego and boosting citation counts for the people who are likely to peer-review your paper. They are more likely to accept your paper if they see some of their own being cited and praised. And if you miss a reviewer's main papers, they will often give you, as part of their review feedback, a list of papers you need to cite if you want your paper accepted.
2) Minor conferences (with none or only partial peer-review) are just a way to get your institution to pay for a holiday. They mostly tend to be located in places like the Caribbeans or southern Europe.
3) Given that the objective is to publish as many papers as possible, every chunk of research work (whatever it might consist of in your field, like a new algorithm, a new math derivation, a big experiment that was conducted, etc.) will be divided up in as many pieces as possible to milk it for as many individual papers as possible instead of producing a single much more substantial paper. When doing a lit review, you will often have to cobble together several very repetitive papers from the same authors to get a complete picture of what they actually did.
4) Maybe not applicable to all fields, but I suspect it applies to most. Nobody understands statistics. There are dozens of statistical tests that can be used to tell if some results are significant (i.e., not due to random chance or some extraneous factors), and each of them are based on very specific assumptions that no one really pays attention to. Most people just try out a bunch of them, arbitrarily, until they get one that says that their results are significant.
Wow.
LMAO you are so right about all this. I was introduced to point 3 when my PI was talking about submitting JUST the study methodology to a journal and that petty shit blew my mind.
This guys sciences
Argh I hate 1) so much. One, uh, anonymous reviewer asked me to cite one of their findings in our introduction section. Which is fine, except I've already cited their paper in our discussion section. Did they miss that in our reference, or are they asking us to mention the same results TWICE in both the introduction and discussion? If you love your paper that much, just get a full page ad for chrissake.
Number 1 is so true three different reviewers did that to me meanwhile some of the publications have no correlation with our peer-review article.
My father and a group of his peers invented a professor to cite on their papers. They'd invent fictional references for the fictional prof, cite him as an extra citation on non-controversial items, and then track how these cites spread throughout papers in the field (communications). Turns out it's rather common to blindly copy the cites from another paper without even checking that they exist. Saves a lot of time, I guess.
That was probably before the internet? I can't imagine putting a reference without checking it with Google Scholar first :| (even really really old ones)
I recently came across a systematic review where the author of the paper mis-cited their own study, claiming it studied a particular research question with a particular methodology, etc. This author literally did no such investigation, cited their own paper several times for this fabricated study.
This is a severe case, but I’m shocked how frequently I check citations and what the author claims is not even remotely close to what the paper they cited actually says. So your story doesn’t surprise me sadly.
This wouldn't work. Even at my bachelor diploma work they run my file through a program to check citations
Nefarious scheming 😈
@@nickmurray9193 Referee(s) of the paper are supposed to check such things. If they don't they are not doing their job - this is then a fault of the journal. This is why we have reputable journals with good editors who pick referees carefully and not-so reputable journals that will publish anything as long as they get paid for it. In any field people know whether the journal is good or not and they judge people based on that.
I worked at a university in a non-academic role and was shocked to find that 40% of our medical research grants were skimmed by the university as "admin fees" because the university was primarily a profit-seeking business. I also came to the conclusion that papers were written primarily because papers had to be published (though occasionally a paper would turn up that was actually game-changing) and that journals accepted mediocre papers because they needed papers to publish.
Terry Pratchett was truly prescient.
Spot on with the publication economy. Publishers exploit authors for their products, and then milk the customers, and those are the same people, depending on access to literature and on getting stuff published. So Publishers essentially strangle academia and milk the tax office, while achieving around 130% return on investment, which is quite obscene for print media.
Overhead fees, yes. True. But at least here, universities are public service, so it´s not because they are seeking profit. It´s because they are criminally underfunded compared to the political expectations placed on them. But instead of employing people and funding reliable structures for them to work and meet their goals, government is pushing universities towards third -party funding, to the point that now even basic functions only are possible through special funding. And that´s called "modern" and "efficient". And Universities, insanely, brag about their "high ratio of third party funding", as if it was a badge of honour instead of the mark of shame that it really is.
Yes, Terry Pratchett got it right. If you want to know what academia really feels like, pay close attention to "Unseen University". It´s a lot closer to reality than most academics would like to admit.
@@pendafen7405 It´s been like that for decades, if not centuries.
This is called indirect cost and is part of all grants.
@@AdrienLegendre theoretically, it's basically paying for space, utilities, administrative and legally services, etc. I'm practice, the grant overhead varies hugely from institution to institution and I doubt it's always actually all toward that in a break-even way, but it's also not wholly a scam.
When I started the PhD program the first thing I noticed was professors trying to sound smart TO ME. I started subbing a the local high school and I'm somehow this awesome high flying academic... And that's the day I realized no one in the world has any frickin clue what they're doing.
Love the imposter syndrome this exudes.
The day you realize almost everyone is just making it up as they go along in almost all walks of life is both liberating and terrifying.
ROFL this is so true. Almost everyone is incompetent at their job, and the longer you do it the more incompetent you become.
Wow that's a pretty drastic conclusion from very little data right? If you're a PhD working at McDonald's I get it.
@@oscarleijontoft are you an academic? sounds so
The one thing that was absolutely verboten in academia when I was there was saying/talking about needing money - at least around profs or tenured faculty. No matter how desperately poor we grad students/recent PhDs were, as we toiled away at our multiple adjunct jobs, it was understood that we were all supposed to act like money wasn't an issue or a priority to us, because we were so passionate and dedicated to our research. Pointing out how poor you were was also considered "gauche" and rude because it made the long-time tenured faculty around us feel uncomfortable. God forbid!!! When I taught adjunct in the US, the tenured profs in my department lived in fancy houses in the most expensive parts of town, while I could barely afford rent on my ghetto studio apartment. I remember going to dinner parties at their homes, where they'd talk about the new sailboat they just bought or renting a house in Tuscany for a year with the family. They could shamelessly flaunt their affluence in front of us, while we were supposed to just smile and pretend we weren't in a completely different social class than them. Disgusting.
This is so nonsense. The fraction is such high-paid professors is negligible.
The final act of selfishness from those boomer profs was to end academic freedom and actual science by mandating experimental injections to force everyone to virtue signal about pretending to protect their should-have-retired-decades-ago zombie shell bodies from the scary cold they heard about on TV.
This! Same! One of my bosses/former supervisors built himself this mansion in a fancy area and was evidnetly earning tons and tons of money. But he scolded me for implying I was just doing my poorly paid contract job for the salary and not because I found it so meaningful and important. Later he said at one of his talks that academia was a "vocation" for him. Never seemed to understand that all academics were not operating from the same financial base, even though he knew exactly what we were earning. Vocation my arse
I grew up with the idea that academic people were poor in general, just from whatever old books and movies I happened to see. I was surprised later (as a staff member not quite middle class) to find that some professors had "Beverly Hillbillies" lifestyles... some of them had their apppointment, some consulting, some property and investments, and for all I know a lot of debt. Some just lived in suburban apartments, I didn't really have a general view of this.
thats also part of the business i guess
This is 100% spot on. One thing I would add is that these institutions are money making machines, but if you actually work there, they act like they are broke and there isn't any money to do anything.
Where does the money go then?
@@magetaaaaaa Pissed away on administrative bloat and unnecessary amenities.
real estate
every single capitalist enterprise lol
@@mikeymullins5305 Nah, I work in industry now. If you have a compelling reason for why something is going to help you get work done they'll find the money for it. If something in the building needs to get fixed, they'll get it fixed. Most things under 10k are not a big deal for department budgets to swing without much approval.
Here's another, "The only reason my research ideas became popular is that I refuse to work with graduate students unless they are enthusiastic about using and promoting my branded approach." It's not even a secret really. The research that becomes trendy has little to do with its quality, practical value, or genuine contribution to a field.
The popularity of ideas is almost entirely due to the sheer number of graduate students a PhD advisor supervises over the course of a career. In contrast, a professor at a small college could publish stellar research for decades, but without PhD advisees to carry the torch, the research has very little chance of getting noticed or built upon. It's a very intellectually incestuous arena.
'electric cars will save the environment' ' more tech is the solution' ' newly discoverd or improved material x will help us use less energy'. And a lot of research is blatantly unnecessary.
gamergate-style "selling soul for idea(L)"?
So, let's say a central website, where the research would be matched with probable projects for worldwide businesses /governments etc. would exist and match those two while bypassing the professors.
Would that help?
Similar as to how now you don't need the getekeepers in the book publishing industry anymore and can publish it yourself.
Businesses accessing what they would need and out with the clerics and bishops of the academic world?
Do you also have an idea as to why research papers lie dormant and dead stacked in some database? I find it very weird... 🙂
A lot of these apply in not for profit jobs too. It's the clash of idealism with the reality of how people behave in competitive social structures. Thanks for saying the quiet parts out loud!
Not for profit on a profit based society, who's gonna be king of shit hill?
Competition based on desperation rather than greed isn´t gonna be any nicer...
Stealing sunshine?A few letters after or before name your give you a license to do that.
Beautifully summarised the fundamental problem in academia today
this is honestly the perfect way to put it. Recently a minister in my country said that scientists waste too much money and in 2015 our PM had said scientists should self-finance their projects. Add to that the stupid wistful yearning and praising of/for the old times here and the public funding shitshow you basically have a country of 1.4bn with millions upon millions of brilliant minds either wasting their potential or going to a foreign nation.
tbh on the advice about employability, our lecturer gave us this, but said realistically the likelihood of going into our desired field was low, so he encouraged everyone to have a one to one meeting with him before end of the first year to talk about electives and core modules that we would pick for year 2 and 3. He was open about this and gave solid advice on career progression, not just as a linear path but the side steps you can take, the professional qualifications 9and if any elective provided them at uni) etc
This is awesome.
Also, in many countries and areas, there can be a high volatility in jobs availability in 4 years.
So a bad jobs market as a freshman may not be indicative of the situation at graduation
There is a difference in:
- If you take this course you won't find a job (so I won't tell you, or I'll risk mine)
- If you take *only* this course, you won't find a job (but I won't tell you, because I don't care about my students)
- If you take *only* this course, you won't find a job (so I'll help my students with, how to handle the "only"-part of that issue, on top of the regular teaching)
Happy to hear, you encountered someone who could have gone for #2, but chose #3 instead. That's a good one.
Unfortunately #1 is still a situation that happens (and I think, was the one that point in the list was about)
I think this in generally known now. One of Brady Haran's channels did a video on this where several profs from U of Nottingham spoke openly about it, saying there are about 5% (IIRC) as many positions each year as there were qualified people graduating.
Some of this is because of our neoliberalized economy, where so much of the wealth is sitting in the capital holdings of the elites doing nothing, that we 'think' the number of jobs out there in many areas, including higher education, is naturally established by 'demand', but in fact this is far from the case. A proper redistribution of wealth and making higher education largely public (as it should always have been, as it is indeed the case in many other countries) would actually allow far more people to be professors in esoteric subjects, in addition to actually making employment far more about an externally, and often democratically, established benchmark rather than simply gunning to be the best person out of a million applicants who never bothered to ask themselves why there shouldn't be more jobs for everyone rather than trying to satisfy some boss' checklist.
Very smart. A lot of the faculty, especially in STEM, tend to tell you that you will have a job. They don't tell you that you still have to work on it some and understand that things are rarely as straight forward as they are in undergrad school.
On the "I wouldn't get my job if I applied for it today" front, when I was doing one of my campus visits for grad school, one of the professors said, "I wouldn't get into a program if I were applying for it today." He meant it as a compliment, but I know now I should have taken it as a warning. The elite overproduction is real.
I'm glad there seems to be more information out there like this helping students go in with their eyes wide open. It's easy to tell yourself, "It's going to be different for me," but I know scholars ten times smarter and skilled than I am, and they're stuck in academic purgatory.
I got halfway through grad school before deciding that I would definitely be leaving it after I finished my doctoral degree. Every single thing you said in this video is true in my experience. So refreshing to see this level of honesty.
There's also the case in which you contribute to a work yet you don't get cited at all in the paper. It happened a couple of times with me as an undergrad. I didn't mind it that much, since I half expected to not be taken seriously as an undergrad. But it did make me lose faith in Academia, and I guess it's one of the reasons I didn't stay in it.
You gotta get your nose brown. Then you'll get on them. Same as any other field unfortunately.
I find thoughts on authorship vary wildly; especially between older researchers and younger researchers. I worked as a tech during my masters and one of the people I did work for didn't include me as an author despite me running experiments for him, and then doing the stats for those data. His viewpoint was that my work didn't constitute an intellectual contribution. On the flip side, someone else from his same graduate class basically included everyone standing in the room while he worked on his experiment as an author. There are lots of cultural impacts that can shape these differing views on authorship, but I've found younger researchers are much more liberal with authorship with how competitive everything is these days.
They should've put your name in the acknowledgement paragraph at the bottom as a "thank you". Our group does that. It's something.
In grad school, I showed my advisor something I had come up with as an undergraduate, and he acted completely unimpressed, but about 6 months later it showed up in a paper of his -- not a word of acknowledgement, of course.
Same here bro, I found out just the other week that a paper containing the results of my bachelor's thesis has been published but I'm not on the paper.
When I was young people would leave academia and come to work with us in industry, saying academia was too political for them. Most of us found this odd, as doing well in industry can be very political too. However, as the years have gone by, looking at academia from the outside, I'm really seeing their point.
Having been an academic who's now in industry, I can completely agree that academia is too political -- and in ridiculous, petty ways. When there's less pie to fight over, the fights get more absurd ...
The lower the stakes of failure, the higher the levels of pettiness and infighting and political mindgames.
I studied Film Science at a college in Norway, when the department head came in to brief us on career opportunities. We were of course all very excited. Then he said this: "You might be surprised, but you can actually get jobs with this education! Yes!" he exclaimed. "Like for instance a cinema director!" Everyone burst out laughing. There are less cinema director jobs in Norway than there were people in that lecture hall. It was a fun session. I think most people who study Film Science know what they're getting themselves into. Let's be real, it's pretty niche. On to other hand, I got a job based on that education really fast afterwards, believe it or not! :)
Never mind. At least unemployment benefit in Norway is more than what you get as a wage for doing an average income job in practically every other country.
@@AliothAncalagon I also studied archeology but work as a programmer now 😅
It's so much easier to find a job and I don't even have a related degree.
Curious. What is film science? Are you studying the atomic components of film reels or something? Trying to piece together lost/damaged films?
It's perfectly valid to study a subject you're interested in and not just something you get a job as. What's really moronic though is if you're interested in the study but not interested in the job that comes out of it. For example, my room mate (thankfully only for a year... he never showered) was doing Japanese studies because he was interested in the culture (infer from that what you want) and wanted to learn the language. However with a degree like that, you will most likely end up in business, dealing with foreign relations - which didn't interest him at all. So he traded 5 years of learning what he liked for 40 years of a miserable job. On the other side of things, a teaching degree has very little to do with teaching, but if you like teaching you can enjoy that for 40 years after forcing your way through 5 years of mostly theoretical study.
My friend is an award winning film director. He left school at 16 with two O-levels.
I'm doing all the things the algorithm likes because I appreciate how you got straight into things.
Wow, such engagement. Very comment.
I went into Classics because my parents had filled my head with old-fashioned ideas about what it meant to be erudite. About two years in, somebody (a graduate student instructor) finally told me that competition was very fierce for academic positions in the field. Their recommendation? Go into the legal profession. They use Latin words occasionally AND they actually make money.
You needed someone to tell you that studying classics isn't a guaranteed path to success?
@@zwan1886 As a child? Yes.
That was a smart strategy of them to remove some future competition.
You don't go into academia to make money. You do it to learn more about your favorite subject. Academia vs. Legal is apples to oranges, really. But if you need the money, and that's more important to you, that's very understandable.
With 2¼ Classics degrees it's something I thought about a lot - but I've also heard that law has at least a few of the same competition problems as academia and... I mean, their Latin is not good Latin. But it's also worth saying that the point isn't that a specialized degree is useless or doesn't translate into increased income; it's just that the somewhat better job you get isn't going to be in it
@@mrgoober6320 children don't "go into classics", that phrasing implies higher studies.
#10: Never admit that a fairly large proportion of star-academicians can't teach their way out of a paper bag.
It’s unfair to tie the two together really.
There’s no realistic expectation that a great researcher should be a great teacher.
But it’s just expected. That’s bullshit. It’s a personality thing.
You can get any boob off the street to teach. The same is not true for scientific investigation.
@@rayr4320 ... Yeah, that statement *does* exemplify the typical academic mentality pretty well. Unfortunately, it's not even close to being true.
How could anyone teach their way out of a paper bg though?
The issue is everyone wants a 6 figure salary, but universities will never direct that level of compensation toward instructors to exclusively teach undergraduates or med students. Not in this day and age and not when you can go on yoo toob and observe nurses and other fine individuals delivering cogent lectures on all levels of physiology chemistry and what not. Universities already have too much personnel overhead, salaries for chancellors, ombudsman's, community liaison's, administrative counselors, sorority affairs overwatch managers, on an on an on. They will always undercut salary to instructors. It's become kind of a quasi part time job. The pressure on faculty is to bring in big dollars-Lets say non hypothetically, a faculty member brings in in 12 million dollars over a three year period, the university takes 7.2 million of that in overhead cost. That faculty member is allowing the department to function and becomes its life line. It pays for the lights, the new equipment to teach the students and also foster collaboration with industrial clients. Teaching is but one facet of what a university provides to its students and the country. Look at china. They can teach fine over there. But they cant recreate the university think tank of the united states. Thats what they covet, but cant yet recreate..
Another one to add: ‘Our method is just a sham to guarantee the answer we wanted already’
I studied a humanities subject at undergrad and I was quickly shocked and demoralised by how all the ‘methods’ we were taught were just fancy ways of justifying whatever biases the academic had to begin with and reduced the world to the simplest answers without ever really gaining any insight
I really doubt that all of the basic, time-tested foundational methods (which are generally what’s conveyed in the course of a bachelor’s degree) of an entire subject are just empty sophisms…usually that’s reserved for research-level study!
That's because the humanities aren't hard sciences. You (or most people, anyway) can't really discover much of anything new in the humanities; you can just come up with a variant on some existing model or theory. And having a theory and then shaping the method to fit it is actually how theories work in the humanities. Because you can't test against nature; only against other theories. So you have to push a new theory of your own, and argue for it. Shaping your methodology accordingly is part of how you persuade the reader that your theory is good and probable.
@@TueSorensen Yeah. Neuroscience and evolutionary psychology is literal hard science that touches on everything that "humanities" tries to study. Guess which sciences are shoved under the embarrassment rug?
humanities are for people who want to take money, throw it in a garbage can and watch it burn, we have public libraries and the internet, get your humanities degrees' for free and for that matter, study as much hard sciences from the library and internet as you can and then go into the university and get credit for the knowledge you got on your own instead of paying 30k dollars-ish a year..."god damn bless america"--lieutenant Dan.
@@unwatchedspacebum I think it’s more than unconvincing to hold “the humanities” responsible for, or regard as somehow implicated in, the exorbitant cost of higher education in the United States - but because there are other, more concrete, and indeed more subversive explanations of the highly lucrative and frivolous operation that most universities have become, it’s quite the convenient scapegoat isn’t it? No education is worth up to a fucking quarter-million dollars, and the sooner we stop talking out the sides of our mouths about it, the better.
i have been literally openly saying all those things. i am overly honest. luckily, my supervisors tolerate it and try to boost my confidence and make me own up to my "success". i am lucky. others would eat me alive.
I think I am partly in the same boat, however I got eaten alive, rather raw. Brutal.
Yep, keep speaking up. You are not alone.
Autism?
Same here. Stick to your integrity. Sadly this video only helps to further normalize the unfair culture in academics.
I spent a long time in academia. I have 5 university degrees, a PhD included. To say that I am deeply unimpressed by both the institution and the personnel who inhabit it would be an understatement. I agree with WF Buckley's remark that he would rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. Now more than ever.
Thanks for sharing that remark.
5 degress? Sounds like a lot of work holy
I have 4 associates, a bachelors, a masters, and working on a Ph.D. lol. There were a lot of course overlap in the 4 associates I got.
Same here. Was not impressed by most. I would say the top ten things not to say all revolve around not outing yourself as religious or someone who isn't far off on the left side of the political spectrum. Even being a moderate was frowned upon.
@@blantantReligion and abandoning reason is frowned upon in science? No way
Once we invited a journal editor to a nice conference we organized, all expenses paid with good food and stuff. Then we submitted a paper to his journal. When the answer came back, he said 2 out of 3 reviews were negative, but he'd tossed the negative ones away and sent the paper again to 2 other reviewers. When we said we couldn't do what r2 was asking, the editor said to just ignore what we didn't like about his comments. Moral of the story: I scratch your back, you publish my paper.
Philosopher here, all of my papers are a 100% reproducible
😂
😂😂😂
Did you b.s. today?
All of my papers are 100% post-consumer recycled paper.
@@roberttalada5196 very green.
You earned my subscription. When I was going through my academic career, I always wanted to be a college professor. I loved the idea of getting to teach that sort of complex, high end content. What I slowly began realize as time passed, is that Academia has just as many flaws as other places and organization. However, the only difference seems to be that Academia puts a lot of effort into ensuring that they can never be held accountable for any of their mistakes. I had a Microbiology professor, and one day when we were talking in private I told him I wanted to be a college professor. The look and response he gave me, one of just sheer apathy and a look of almost pain in the guys eyes. He essentially told me in the nicest way possible that being a professor had it's ups and downs, After this video I now realize what he really wanted to tell me all along. I am a lot happier having used my degree as the credential tool it truly was to just create my own business, much happier now.
Dodged a bullet there 3/4 teachers will remain adjunct FOREVER. I moved abroad, so that even if I have to job hop . . . I get paid top rate. I have no regrets.
thanks for sharing this, I was looking into a career as a professor, but now I'm starting to get cold feet.
@@Logqnty now, you don't have to take my advice, but I will speak from my personal experience. Instead of being a professor, I went and started my own tutoring business. Now I can teach with the freely based around how parents want and I've found that teaching outside the control of the mainstream academic community has been liberating and enlightening.
@@zaraxis3519 academia is shit, innit?
I felt pretty abandonned and let down by my university. I quickly realised how much of just a money machine it was, and realistically worthless the degree actual is. This has not helped that feeling, but this is great content actually saying something about these things rather than just riding it out.
I swear to god, I graduated with a geology under graduate degree this last summer and it feels completely useless. Everyone is asking for experience, a degree is useless, and it feels like I can't get into any job prospects.
@@shawnjavery after a decade of working i have used my engineering degree a total of 0 times. I would ignore a couple of years of experience on job adverts and just apply, the worse is they can say no and if you can get some even unpaid short term work in something even close to the right field that will probably speak more volumes than a degree would. You just need to identify the desired skills within the experience you have.
Capitalism is destroying us all
As a student, I found that the fastest way to get a prof to shut you down is to say "I disagree," and then provide reasoning.
Been there, done that! LOL. Some really appreciate it...I had both. One made me cry and made my life impossible, and the other took me as his last PhD student; even if he was not taking any more students due to retirement, he appreciated the banter!
@@yanis80 It is disheartening that disagreement is considered a banter. In an ideal world (of which I am allowed to dream about), it would be considered an intellectual disagreement: the person simply had a different point of view on the matter, which would hopefully shed more light onto the issue.
Choose your professors, choose your battles, and don’t go for a coup de grace. Make it incidental to grasping the larger subject area.
But out of a lot of professors I only felt confident enough of both my position & my relationship to the professor. Always easier if I had already been discussing fine points before trying anything that sounds like an outright rejection of the alternative.
I got a decade jump on a key area of my chosen field from such an ioen ended exploration of a mathematical analysis of changing technology driven by mathematical reasons
And I parlayed that knowledge into an early career win when I solved a large scale accounting issue for a global bank.
What I did reduced daily processing from 15-30 hours to 4-6.
Ten years later that technology dominated its broad area of high volume data and processing in the major commercial products.
Too much challenging and too little, are sub optimal at best.
I have worked for people. But if they are focused on corporate conformity and a dislike of ideas not invented here, I will leave at the end of my contract, and will find greener pastures.
An abrupt project cancellation can be painful. But I have already found good work so I know it is just a matter of time.
I usually do not have to deal with HR beyond justifying my ability to contribute at a level commensurate with my past rates.
My professional reputation and feeling of self worth aren’t on the line because a project got terminated.
It’s healthier for everyone that way.
Actually, that action just reveals true nature of a prof. That person may be reasonable saying "ok, let's check this..." or show its true nature being ugly bastard.
Einstein disagreed with his math professors and almost got expelled. Be Einstein
as someone who went all the way through university until I saw reason and applied for a position as technician, I wondered for years why ppl who mostly start out as decent, intelligent persons, would so fiercly defend an institution that is exploitative, breaking their back and soul, while being, well, as you told. My feeling:
People sacrifice so much to get where they are, and when they are there, they have hardly any other reliable options left. So what develops is somewhere between sunken cost fallacy, Stockholm Syndrom and a religious cult. Their perception of self depends on the illusion staying intact.
THIS! I wanted to drop out of grad school or change my major so badly "but you came this far" was all I heard... fast forward thirteen years & I was changing careers anyway. Student loans be damned.
My friend recently had his degree revoked. It happened after in his final year when he landed a university-arranged internship that turned into a permanent job after graduation. His boss there was constantly criticizing the quality of most graduates, claiming they lacked basic skills/wth are they learning in uni etc. My friend, would agree and offer detailed critiques of the university's curriculum/processes etc. This same boss, it turns out, sat on an industry panel that evaluated industry and acedemia as a whole. After talking to my friend, bosses public criticisms became more specific (though my friend wasn't named). Soon after, my friend received a letter and a meeting accusing him of defamation, academic dishonesty, and a lack of moral character. He initially dismissed it as a joke, but the reality hit him hard when him applying for new jobs started failing due to failed background checks on his education.
Sometimes it's better to stay quiet.
@@一本のうんちoh my god, this was horrifying to read and I’m so sorry this happened to your friend. Having an entire degree revoked, after you’ve put in all that work…I hope he’s doing better now.
@@一本のうんちthat should absolutely end in a lawsuit
Working in industry on AI. Most common work task is reimplementing research. The number one challenge in my early career was not knowing which organizations actually deliver real results with the papers. Now it has gotten fairly easier due to tracking sites like paperswithcode, but on new topics this is still an issue. I would say that around 80-95% of publications are junk, nothing authentically new or even improved, just boilerplate papers. Maybe around 50-75% on most respected journals is total garbage. And the real issue is that there are very limited amount of publications on actually challenging topics, because mainstream likes hyped research. Also maybe because of gambling, a chance to get within the (semi-)big names if you got luck on the paper and topic.
I was warned by a coworker with more academic experience in my field that the hit rate for the grand claims in papers in our field is similar. I personally have a really high bar for my work, and the lack of rigor in “serious science” is pretty disappointing.
@@enginerdy same. I'm in academia and I can see that a lot of research is just solutions seeking for problems
What I find is that the smaller engineering journals often have very high quality papers that work even though they get few citations. If something is done in a very prestigious journal though it is most likely false and doesn't work.
These are facts, man.
When I started in graduate school, I kept track of new publications. I long have stopped bothering with that. There is such a low signal-to-noise ratio in academic publishing that if you find something that works, it's pretty much by accident.
Seriously though i do wish that the part with "job opportunities" would be openly talked about. I was the first one to get into academia from my family, and i had the assumption that there would be a lot of good opportunities. The first semester we were even told which variety of jobs you could theoretically perform with said degree. But by the time i got my bachelors and started to consider working instead of getting my masters i was completely shook by the lack of positions and even MORE shocked by the income you would get.
I have worked many partime job as a student, and it was really difficult to do so - i had to work during the night and attend courses at day. And most of those parttime jobs paid me more than fulltime jobs in my field. SAD.
I probably would have gotten my degree anyway because of my love for the subject. But holy shit, i would have prefered to know the realistic outcome later on. My family were extremely mad and disappointed because they expected me to graduate and be able to provide for them. Meanwhile, i could barely provide for myself with the first jobs i gotten.
hug
pls tell me it wasnt languages ;-; otherwise im gonna cry myself to sleep tonight
Kinda shit family if they expected you to take care of them tbh
Before anyone embarks on a degree they need to investigate the supply and demand aspect for the course.
When I was studying Chinese, my teacher was very bitter that she was deceived into studying teaching Chinese as a foreign language.
All the demand was in teaching English, and only when she was graduating did she realise that the supply and demand curve for teaching Chinese as a foreign language was completely skewed to the supply side
Wow, your family eanted to parasite you.
Ha. This reminds me of my adventures with art university:
1. Everybody hates everybody else. There were groups of professors and applicants, that hated other groups. But they all fought together when the institution was at risk. If you spoke ill about the way things were done, you were an outcast.
2. Nobody said what is really important in job as an artist. And I musi say it's not your skills. The most important thing is who you know. Most important skill is the ability to kiss any high position as you can met and keep in touch.
3. Almost any art competition is won by a small selected few who are professors favorites.
4. Ability to talk bullshit is more important than manual abilities.
A group full of fragile egos, defined by their pomposity.
Ever since beauty became "subjective", art has become a secret language for the wealthy to exclude the uninitiated with. It's actually considered a GOOD thing now for your art to be hideous and awful, just so long as its in some complex and convoluted way that the right people can memorize and use to show off as a membership card to other right people.
So pretty much the same thing as in politics or most business fields.
Doesn't matter with art , no one gets successful or even gets a decent job . The lecturers are dirty , tired and poor shuffling from drunken exhibition opening to the next. They can't teach because they don't know and do not want to be found out. After you pierce the veil of art sucess there isn't much there either. Unsold works, debt and zero return.
@@silentrob668 Maybe they should create things people like, beautiful things made with skill, elegance, and intelligence, instead of crapping their feelings into a medium like a diarrhetic angry toddler. I like art, but most modern (post-modern?) art is a pathetic joke. And BORING. 'Oh, look, another critique of capitalism. That was super cutting edge in *1955.*'
Arts and humanities here. Here’s another unspoken truth: you really only need one semi interesting idea that you can reframe, paraphrase, rework slightly for the rest of your academic career
THIS. I'm a masters student in sociology and our department has an extremely prestigious professor who is considered the authority in her field because she came up with a specific concept that she has used and reused in much of her work. She's absolutely odious with her students, to the points of driving a few of them to absolute meltdowns, but she's untouchable because of the amount of money and prestige she brings that she obtained for coming up with that one concept.
@@isasou1307lol
can anybody become like Marx/engels (such great sociologists) out of their own will power, without any formal degree? just asking.....
@@rationalist7Nowadays, people usually won’t listen to you that much if you don’t have a degree. Which is understandable, as you need some sort of spam filter, but unfortunate for people with good ideas. But to be fair, if you actually have good ideas, you should still pursue education to make the best out of them.
there’s an unspoken truth that the humanities are not real academic fields
Me too. The hardest part of my academic life was not just putting advisor's name next to mine on my papers but it was when I had to come up with ways to convince the advisor that the paper's original idea was actually coming from him (without him having done absolutely anything) so that he wouldn't gate the submission and/or my graduation. Sometimes I had to quietly undo his irrelevant edits to my papers in such a way that his ego is not hurt.
number 2 is why i cant get a job in academia. crazy that the institute that teaches / encourages 'critical thinking' doesn't want that pushed back on itself.
The people who won't take critism are always the idiots demanding you criticize others.
@@samsonsoturian6013 essential truth here! LOL Aint it always the way!
@@samsonsoturian6013 nah, bureaucrats never want you to think critically because it doesn’t serve their ends.
It's generally less that criticism against the institution isn't allowed (in fact in my experience, every academic I've ever spoken to is willing to smack talk their university at the drop of a hat), but that you don't publish said criticism in a public space. This is the same as basically every other work place and isn't unique to academia at all
@@epicmarschmallow5049 There's exceptions to both assertions. In the factory jobs and retail I worked no one gave a rip if employees gave frank remarks to outsiders. Also, I'm a historian, and historians overwhelmingly don't give a rip about other historians. We wouldn't even know what the other guy is saying about the college.
The physics uni profs at my uni had a workaround for the employment thing. They had a graph of every field they could get you in and how much they make. Then said you get that much because there are only 5 people employed there. In a room of like 1200 people, you can make your own estimates
Indeed. I attended several career panels when I was in grad school and listened to many people talk about their "really interesting and rewarding" work only to admit at the end that there were only like 5-6 of those jobs in the whole country. How was that supposed to help me?
@@sciencetypeperson2401 the constant lying of careers to trick the youth into paying Uni fees. There ain't jobs in desirable fields out of University for 95% of the students that put the work in.
The qualification economy is completely fake, to the point jobs that don't need higher education and are better taught through apprenticeship and career experience now require asinine bits of paper that required none of the skills to acquire that the job needs.
What did he call that? Field theory?
@@Andrew-rc3vh it was just part of the introduction in the first week.
@@Andrew-rc3vh I see what you did there
Great video! I'm reminded of this quote by Kissinger: “The reason that university politics is so vicious is because stakes are so small."
Kissinger plagiarized this quote from S.I. Hayakawa who likely appropriated it from someone else etc. all the way back to some wag at the University of Bologna in the 12th century.
@@richardcoughlin8931 good to see tradition has a long and venerable counter-tradition
@@richardcoughlin8931damn, right back at the (official) beginning of universities
Galbraith said it as well. Many have said it
Really, quoting Kissinger?
I'm a tenured professor. The least I have done on a paper is to provide the main ideas and supervised it very closely. I do not intend to ever put my name on a paper where I've not done significant work.
Unfortunately, you're right: even in theoretical physics, and even for "big names", professors do in fact appear on papers despite not contributing very much. Now, the question I often wonder about is: why do we senior academics then have the moral authority to ask students to turn in their own work?
I think sometimes contributing your name is important. It's like a "seal of approval". If I'm looking a paper, and I see Max Tegmarks name on it... it's going to be worth reading. Why is that... well Max sets a really high bar. If Max's name was not on it... I would probably just go to the next one. Likewise.. if you put your name to a poor quality paper.. that reflects on you.
@@technokicksyourass If you contributed to a research paper, your name should appear on it; if not, your name should not appear on the paper. This is basic academic honesty.
Moreover, the scientific ethos demands that we let independent and myriad minds judge for themselves whether a paper is of sound quality. "Seal of approval" is neither scientific nor does it uphold the highest standards of academic credit and integrity. We should look in the mirror--examine our own scientific compass--if that's how we judge whether a paper is worth examining.
@@YiZenChua senior professor or person who checked a paper deserves credit. Simple as that. I also use papers I write but assisted (and i use that term loosely as they tend to be less than competent) by a student to boost that student's reputation by giving them authorship. But if i also have a good medical case or series that I passed onto a younger student or doctor so they have something to write about, I expect to be given the courtesy of checking that paper and be named as a co-author. In medicine, we even give authorship to someone who just performed the histopathology reading of a case. Why is it such a big deal to so many people that they don't want to share credit?
@@itsgonnabeanaurfrommePrinciples and standards are important. Proofreading a page or two--or even the entire paper--is not the same as spending months analyzing, solving, checking, and re-checking. If we play fast and loose with standards and principles, we are punishing the careful / scrupulous / ethical and the hardworking.
@@YiZenChu I got my undergrad in Physics and you are just like the professors I respect and that shaped me greatly . It should be about the principles and standards. If life has taught me anything, it's that those who disregard such notions as "outdated" are only fooling themselves and all who seek their guidance.
The accuracy of some of your confessions is just eerie. Every applicant even for an assistant position is publications-wise just way better than me and I feel terribly guilty about it. A former student of mine hopped from position to another your years though he knows how to publish much good work on fancy topics, all of which I don't. Man, I was so relieved when he finally got tenured, I was close to handing him my chair and everything...
Several of these points are why I'm glad I was able to get through my masters degree really quickly. I got my bachelors degree from a university that didn't do research. All they focused on was education. When I moved on to my masters degree I got more exposure to how research is done at universities. I loved most of the people I was working with, but I hated the research environment. "Publish or perish" is a blight that has caused me to read all research with skepticism.
Even in the early 80's my course, which most thought was likely to lead to a job in the field, the actual numbers were about 30%. Most graduate jobs, are nothing to do with the degree. Later on a Uni suggested I write up my job (some very technical but industry changing maths) for a PhD. Great I thought. "So, who will be your supervisor?". Me, "what's a supervisor?". It became clear very quickly that not only did I think I was the only person doing what I was doing, it seemed I actually was. No one could supervise, so, no PhD. So, since then I've gone with "well, the only reason I don't have a PhD is that the Uni couldn't find anyone who knew more about it than me" :-)
Well, then that was probably a shitty university / department. There is nothing wrong of knowing about a particular topic more that the supervisor. In the end, the supervisor's rule is, well, to supervise, but the job has to be done by the PhD candidate who thereby demonstrates that he/she is able to perform research "independently".
Many sobering realizations--just one of many things I've gotten out of my Ph.D. But I don't regret it! Thanks for your super valuable content, Andy.
I enrolled in graduate school after several years working as a chemistry technician, with the intent of pursuing a PhD. As soon as I saw the workings of academia from the inside, I switched to a MS and got out of there as quickly as possible.
What do chemistry technicians do?
in my freshman year in Fine Arts, they did tell us that statistically only two of our promotion would eventually work in the field. I felt weirdly relieved by that honesty
I can be pretty sure my late father (PhD in Mathematics) never had his name on a paper he didn't contribute to.
I can be that sure because when I looked him up, he had only 1 paper with his name followed by 3 full books through a major college book publisher.
He was actually in high demand and had a tenured position because his work was quite influential (his specialty was Sheaf Theory within Algebraic Topology, and his book was literally named "Sheaf Theory")
I think he might have known John Nash of Game Theory fame because he worked in the same place, knew someone who directly knew Nash, and had a handmade copy of one of Nash's board games.
Sometimes it seems to me that mathematicians are a different breed than anyone else in academia.
Is your father's name Glen Bredon?
@@lordspongebobofhousesquare1616 Yes. Besides being a mathematician, he also was a Apple II programmer.
When he died, he left his Apple II library (including the source code to the programs he wrote) to the Apple II community.
Yes, I have read that book, it is one of the best. Mathematics is not as bad as other domains, there is little of the gratuitous authorship. The papers have proofs so reproducibility is not in question.
I recently (last month) finished a PhD in Algebraic Geometry, and I don't think I've got the technical chops for academia.
Your dad sounds like an absolute legend.
Tell me about it -- it's even worse if you're a student; I was a graduate student at university that rhymes with Hohns Jopkins and a semester into my graduate degree I realized I made a big mistake as I tabulated the loans I took out and measured them against what kind of value I was getting from the coursework (I felt I was rehashing everything I had learned in my undergraduate studies, not any more intrinsically and even less pragmatically). When I tried seeking more engagement and support and failed, I was vocal about it and it didn't win me any friends with the faculty. Over a decade later (and still paying those loans) I still feel validated; while professionally successful, I feel like I received more support through my military background than anything I gained from my graduate degree. YMMV, but in my experience, these top tier graduate schools put so much money into their reputation and not enough into providing the opportunities or experiences that would make their scholars successful -- they are only successful because they attract the best and brightest by this reputation, but substantively, they are lacking.
I very much feel that there should be a class on picking a college and majors taught in either AP high school, or first semester of college. DEFINITELY should cover picking a career that will allow you to pay off your loans.
That's basically the Ivy League. An aura of mystique surrounding a good, but not really excellent, education. Yale has been the #1 law school in America for decades. No grades, only a P/F system, and no one fails. Yale graduates are infamous for being, just, utterly ignorant about the practice of law. Often well-schooled in theories of jurisprudence and whatever the most recent 'social justice' garbage to fall out of the social sciences is, but totally unable to brief, argue, and win a case using actual law and governing precedent.
You tabulated your loans vs the coursework during grad school? Shouldn't you have done that before entering?
Those prestigious universities don't attract the best and brightest. They attract recognition hogs and stupid people who don't know any better.
Interesting. In the UK, Oxford and Cambridge seem to deserve their reputation more, at least in my field (maths). I did my undergraduate in one of them, and then did my PhD in one of the strongest non-Oxbridge universities in the country. I discovered that the fourth year courses at my new university were pretty consistently covering the content I'd learned in my third year.
I think the reason is because of the tutorial/supervision system, which means students get a lot more individual attention and mentoring than in other universities. Basically, in the first and second years, you can expect 3-4 sessions a week with academics from your college going through problem sheets, either on your own or in a really small group.
I am not in academics. I will read academic papers with much, much more scrutiny with this insight. Now I understand why my academic boss regards a peer reviewed paper just as reliable as some forum post at some random web site.
The comments section is the strongest form of peer review!
@@engineeringvision9507 My biggest issue with academic papers is that they don't have comment sections, even if it were limited to only other academics from the same field it would allow for direct visible scrutiny.
If a video on TH-cam has issues or is applicable in another situation the uploader didn't think of then someone in the comment section will write about it, this isn't possible in a "no scrutiny please" system. The lack of comment sections is actually the opposite of what the spirit of science is about.
@@-haclong2366 Papers to me have more in common with currency and politics than information and ideas.
All you have to do is read them and you can decide if they are reliable or not. If you don't have any ability to discern reliability or validity based off reported statistics and information than you probably would find a forum post more reliable.
Pretty much!
This video is confirming a lot of rather alarming suspicions I have had as a student.
On point #2, talking bad about your organization is a no-go pretty much wherever you are, even in the private sector.
Never saying you couldn't be hired into your role today hit home for me as a web developer.
I started web development in 1996. I had two years of college, a certificate in Novell Netware administration or something like that, and I was working with other people who had no related formal education. Because at the time there really wasn't any sort of thing at the time.
At my last job as a web developer I was working alongside people with master's degrees and even a couple who had PhDs in some sort of computer science, data analysis or some other specific web technology or field. I was basically outclassed on paper by guys who constantly needed me to show them how to do some web publishing tasks like stripping variables or where to use and set constants or other things to avoid cross script injection or Dom manipulation things that pose security risks. Not to mention they needed me to show them command line, remote shell or scripted password hashing stuff all the time.
My resume would be at the bottom of any pile if they went strictly on education certificates and credentials. But I can do just about any job involving web publishing or content management system dev or administration.
That's because you are effectively an IT administrator to help with custom web publishing, and they are clearly specialists in data science or machine learning. Their job description is not even remotely close to yours and vice versa.
Well aside from just formal education you do have a ton of work experience if you have been working since 1996, I figure that would count for a lot wouldnt it?
I asked a new guy with an MSc in Computer Science to upgrade the RAM in a laptop and he looked at me like I had asked him to solve Fermat's Theorem.
@@tetrabromobisphenol academia is highly disconnected with what the professional world needs. Academia is too focused on theory than what businesses actually need you to do. th-cam.com/video/kJFSczoWfy0/w-d-xo.html
@@norwegianzound computer science isn't about building gaming rigs. any 12 year old can do that.
As an Aspie, I always felt weird about name dropping. Thanks for clearing up that this is actually normal dishonesty for name exchanging.
You aren’t an Aspie. You have Alexithymia and never learned solid social skills.
Don't understand what you mean at all. Can you clear it up? Why do you feel differently about it after watching the video? Because it's "actually normal"? What's that got to do with you being "Aspie"?
@@nonyobisniss7928 "aspie" is slang for a person with aspergers. and we are generally (or at least i know i am) excessively honest. so the first bit in this video about putting names that haven't really done anything feels very weird. personally i disagree with the commenter and still see it as pretty bad
@@frank_calvert Thanks, that makes sense. I also feel it's still bad regardless of it being normal.
It’s right that putting the wrong names on your author list feels wrong to you. Because it is wrong. It’s blatant scientific misconduct and degrades the integrity of your research. An author has to bear the consequences (both positive and potentially negative) of the publication. Someone who contributed nothing cannot do that and thus should never be put on the paper. By gaming the rewards system of academia, you are undermining the integrity of science and the public trust in the publication process.
Of course, many people still do this. Of the potential forms of scientific misconduct, fudging the author list to honour someone higher up is relatively mild compared to things like p-hacking or outright fraud. Which also happen a lot. But that still doesn’t detract from the fact that it is serious misconduct and you should never do it.
You don’t need famous people on your author list to publish a paper. Ideally, your university and your national community should have a code of conduct that you can refer to when someone pressures you to put their name on your work, and a disciplinary process to enforce it. The Netherlands, where I work, recently released an updated code of conduct and moved towards enforcing an open environment that discourages unethical behaviour. There may still be difficult corner cases. But generally, you should put the rightful authors and only the rightful authors on your paper.
"Trendy applications" is an interesting term. I got a request from a journal once to reprint one of my conference proceedings papers - but they wanted the focus of their journal explicitly emphasized in my rewrite. This really did change the research just a bit - it was probably responsible for this becoming my most-cited paper to date.
This is simply the most honest, most explosive presentation I have ever seen. It speaks out loud on (almost) every issue that has been screaming in my mind for decades, and which I have used many opportunities, including public fora to speak about. Fortunately, I work in a governmental university and it isn't too easy to throw me out for speaking my mind. However, I am not much liked, to put it mildly, and even my better disposed friends keep hoping that someday I will grow out of my ‘juvenile’ outspokenness.
I consider that the intellectual vitality of a civilization is very critically dependent on its intellectual honesty, and essentially every one of the 9 points you discussed are instances where we compromise on this honesty either by actually lying or by remaining silent when we shouldn't be silent. As the subterfuge continues, the quality of our output - not necessarily accurately measured in any index such as the h-index - will degrade, is already degrading. It will happen all around, everyone will be complicit, and if ever there comes a time to blame the academic community for letting things slide to this, everyone will escape blame. At the same time, we would have become a less resilient, less flexible civilization. This is how nations and superpowers decline, this is how entire civilizations will decline if the intellectual vanguard, the academia, itself begins to falter, and does not even notice. A natural outcome of suppressing honest calling out.
When I took this job, it was for the primary reason that an academic job is the only one where you get to keep your soul. It's no longer true now, though it's still perhaps better than the corporate world of today.
Perhaps some of us who are able to see what is happening should join hands and shout louder about the dangers. This may lead to movement, even if the numbers are very small. I would be happy to join and contribute.
holy shit, this comment makes me so sad. i was planning to pursue a career in academia for your exact reason, it feels like the only place where i get to keep my soul, especially compared to the corporate world. seeing this comment is making me really reconsider.
... the not noticing is definitely the scariest part... You're the hero we teach children about: everyday people with integrity.
Yeah. It happens everywhere because it happens within. This is a trade-off world. It's just a matter of deciding which part of our life will get traded.
Regarding passing, my experience was completely different. In computer science they were not afraid to make people fail, and make them fail hard.
I contributed to one paper on layered goal orientated action planning. My contribution was fleshing out the core concept and proof reading. The dean attempted to strike me from the paper, himself being listed as an author, although he did nothing on the paper at all. I fixed it, but after that had zero interest in further research, given that publications were not only not required, but treated as irrelevant when it came to performance evaluations. It's a shame because I could have generated a huge amount of research output if I had been given some support. We can guess why I was not given any...
I could write a paper on this video. The amount of truth being spewed is wonderful.!!
Excellent work. 1 more thing I would like to add is the proliferation of shortcut papers like bibliometric reviews, meta-analysis and opinion papers (where 20 so authors put their pieces in a single article). I'm ashamed to say that many academics especially academics from South Asia who have reached editorial positions publish only this stuff and put names of less accomplished faculty for all types of favours. The travesty is that these 'academics' have 50k citations but no academic identity. While there are a lot of 'publications' coming out there's no real 'research.'
Hold on, meta-analyses can be a real boon and extremely useful. Bibliometric reviews much less so but even then, quite useful.
@@andrearaimondi882 I agree. The problem is commoditization and indiscriminate usage and no check on that . There are finance faculty who are doing meta-analysis and publishing in Journals of Medicine. The spirit of research gets lost in the process.
So, things aren't just bad at my institution, but it's rather in the whole academic industry. That warms my heart and chills my spine at the same time.
this guy just dropping truth bombs.
College does a remarkably bad job of job training, my major was chemistry with a minor in computer science. What I got from college were a lists of topics:
1) those that I enjoy learning about
2) those that I didn't enjoy learning about
3) those that came easily
4) those that didn't come easily
5) ways that I can approach learning different topics if I needed to.
Most importantly, I got methods to reason about data.
What I learned from being employed is what people would actually pay me to do. No one would pay me to do anything dealing with chemistry or chemical instrumentation, despite having worked on programming for 2 different raman spectrometers. It turns out they would pay me to program GUIs and databases that generally supported business applications, financial transactions and reporting.
As it happens, in doing my job I have to analyze and reason about data and often have to learn new topics. So I found my education to be very worthwhile, though just not directly applicable.
I was a chemistry professor and a large number of them ended up in non-science jobs because of the strength of their analytical data skills.
Regarding reproducibility in my field (astrophysics) - it depends. Experimental results are generally fairly reproducible because most data becomes publicly available relatively quickly (if not instantly as it's taken), and the data analysis tools for a given observatory are public from the get go. Where reproducibility stops being considered is in more modelling/theoretical results. In this case the codes used are almost always private and unique to each group, so you will have people saying "we fit the data and infer X" and nobody can check whether that is because of some coding issue/choice for instance, or because that is actually what the data is telling you.
Another thing I would mention is that grant proposals are frankly a giant con. We always have to promise some giant breakthrough and then some. If you don't, someone comes along saying "in 3 years I will detect life on exoplanets" or something, and whatever bit of incremental work pales in comparison to that, so your application is immediately rejected.
Exactly
what tips do you recommend for those new into the field of astrophysics? I got my bachelors in astronomy and astrophysics, and have no idea what to do
Astrophysics is a crap ...
@@bornatona3954 Astrophysics is dadgum awesome. Just don’t get into it Willy-nilly. Be a creative and a risk-taker to be in that field… don’t aim for being a cog. You’ll sacrifice some dignities in the short-term; but, if you have a passion for finding an answer to a specific question or questions, you can take quite the journey to get there.
It would be nice to see someone take Jason Lisle’s anisotropic synchrony convention to other directions and apply that to the physics of black holes and the study of time… If you’ve got the math skills, that’s a fun idea.
At any rate… this world doesn’t get it. It’s awesome to be able to search out that stuff. It is awesome to seek the rewards for that stuff. That’s being an artist and a pioneer and an investigator all at once.
It is cool stuff.
Astrophysics is super interesting - Any idea what's in store for us Virgos for the rest of January?
These are actually so telling about the academic system
As a soon to be PhD from an EU university, I agree with and have seen all of these. I have to add, though, that in my home country, where I graduated in Biochemistry, you better believe students were failing exams if they put in insuficient work.
Thanks for the video!! Been an engineering researcher for several years now at a pretty prestigious state school here in the US - I agree with many of the points here, but university criticism is incredibly important. It’s a shame that some folks face backlash from private institutions for being honest about systemic problems, and I think that talking about it “behind closed doors” is even worse… stand up for something that matters, obviously not advocating for anyone to commit career suicide but there are ways to do it to bring issues to light that deserve to be brought to light. Keep looking up!
A few years ago, I was temporarily expelled from my Masters in Education.
Part of the requirements were attending four Practicums over 3 years.
In the lead up to this, I had spent 10 years in the workforce, in a non-educational or academic work environment. My parents were successful entrepreneurs and employers who were VERY big on regular leadership coaching, communication and presentation skills, as well as inclusion and diversity training.
I was also diagnosed at 8 years old with ASD and serious heart condition at birth, and had been through the ins and outs of the educational and disability system and their respective sectors.
And while I knew going in I obviously didn't know everything (as nobody does), I was super keen to learn from industry experts and educators.
They... HATED... me. And I mean... hated... to every extent that you can possibly imagine.
I sat at the front of every class, wrote an insane amount of notes, and asked questions when things didn't make sense. I networked, did every assignment on time, and even had three jobs lined up before I graduated. I was essentially a model student.
Then why was I expelled? A few reasons...
1) By asking innocent basic questions to better understand the material, a few faculty members thought I was questioning their knowledge. None of my cohort (or student union) thought this.
2) Several faculty members verbally bashed their workplace during classes. Concerned, I reported it, and was reprimanded for "disrupting the culture of the university".
3) I asked my Practicum Mentor for a single day to attend a small job interview (you know, to earn money to eat, pay rent and stay alive), was approved, and then reprimanded by the Practicum Co-Ordinator for not making my classes a priority.
4) On one occasion during peak COVID season, I told the faculty members I felt uncomfortable forcing elementary school students to share food during recess. I was told I was being difficult and argumentative.
5) I received contradictory feedback from two professors in the same day - one thought I was the best teacher they'd seen all year, and the other thought I was the worst teacher they'd seen all year. My teaching was viewed by both teachers at the same time. It ultimately comes down to perspective really, and philosophy. The university sided with the negative professor.
6) Lastly, and most importantly, the Co-Ordinator of the Master's Degree said verbally, and I quote... "From my experience, people with disabilities shouldn't become educators. They slow everybody else down." This woman had a Ph.D. It was weird because this quote didn't mesh well with her thesis on inclusion and diversity in children's books. Despite there being zero human characters, the Very Hungry Caterpillar is 'apparently' a racist book. She also had a son on the Spectrum.
We sued the university, provided evidence, there was an investigation, and it was an easy win. I was allowed back within the university to continue. But by then, I was so disillusioned with academia, I quit completely. I wasn't 20 when I went through this. I was 29.
All sounds very normal.
@Karl with a K Sorry, just because academia is pretty fucking shit doesn't mean business gets to be the honorable hero now. Both are bad for different (and frankly many of the same) reasons.
It also doesn't mean that not listening to actual experts within academia makes you a very smart boy, either.
@@karlwithak1835 It is simply untrue that "no business recognizes the work of academics as worth looking at". In the pharmaceutical industry we interact with academics on a regular basis.
There's nothing most teachers hate more than having to teach instead of just being a malignant narcissist.
Bro paging the ADA rn
This sort of academic politics was a big factor in why I ended up leaving grad school for a change of career path.
In a similar vein, I learned that you don't talk out loud about too many particulars of the project you're working on before publication. Especially not around people from other departments whose labs work on similar topics. Collaboration with others outside your own lab is essential to bring in the right set of skills and expertise, but that needs to be kept to a very tight circle of trusted colleagues, preferably colleagues who are relatively disinterested in your topic of research beyond the specific technical aspect they're helping you with. One might naively suppose that two labs working in similar areas of study could have a lot of insights and perspectives to share that would mutually advance their understanding of the matters they're studying if they were to compare notes. But in fact, those labs are competition, and tipping your hand might give them a chance to scoop you.
Some research groups like to host meetings associated with specific scientific data and their applications. Beware because it is mainly for harvesting everyone's ideas for their own Ph.D..'s publications and they will not collaborate!
Also, you may be eager to collaborate by sharing some data gathered during your project. You forgot to check back on it or get no response and a year later that guy produced 4 papers with it, without offering co-authorship or project acknowledgment!
I once had a part-time job tutoring a Biology grad student in the R programming language because he didn't want to work with a lab that had those skills.
@@LightningSpritesJetsWizard Could be worse... I just wrote a collaborative grant proposal just to find the other person submitted it himself without me on it. They won the grant.
Found this very interesting. I'm not an academic but when I was a student I had a lot of involvement in activism and working with more radical academics, the UCU (the main trade union for academics in the UK), and casualised hourly paid lecturers. A lot of these ring true in terms of the criticisms we had of academia, especially as it became increasingly marketised and as rankings based on publications led to the kind of status competition and gaming of the system you talk about. The 'don't criticise the university publicly' one really hits home and I think combines with the fact that academics tend to be on short term contracts and tenured positions are more competitive and less frequent. At my university short term contracts allowed a de facto purge of more politically active academics and union militants, especially in the English Literature department which used to be a hotbed of criticism of the marketisation of the university. One prominent tenured academic was suspended, for such transgressions as excessive sighing in meetings with management, but that led to a major backlash. After that they realised all they needed to do was clear out the more troublesome junior staff by quietly deciding not to renew their contracts.
Also whenever we as students did activism which called into question the university's PR image of itself, you could tell it really upset them and often led to massive overreactions.
@karlwithak.If you're going to go all pseudo-intellectual like that, at least use the correct spelling of "their"
@@itsgonnabeanaurfromme How is he going "pseudo-intellectual like that?" He's just sharing his experience.
4:38 absolutely true in cutting edge medical imaging research! There is so much emphasis on novelty and potential impact instead of developing something that actually works robustly across a large population. One of the main reasons I left. Some of my other reasons are also listed in this video.
Can’t tell you how refreshing I found the completely cold open with no intro
Thank you for this video. Having been steeped in Academia for the vast majority of my adult life, I 100% agree with most of what you've said. It really does feel like the University system has somehow become duplicitous.
as far as your point about not being able to fail students, I think that depends on your university. I haven’t had any pushback when students have failed. I’m extremely thankful we can maintain some rigor in our program.
Same here. One of the things that makes it easier to fail a student (at least on the graduate level) is that people who fail generally fail spectacularly (failure to complete work, cheating, etc), so it's pretty easy to justify failing them.
All of this and more was why I left academia. I then wrote the book A Degree In Homelessness? Entrepreneurial Skills for Students to get students the things they need to succeed AFTER their formal education. I burned some serious bridges with that book! The title alone keeps me off of most campuses! Nice video!
listened only the first three, and oh my science, a'm so grateful for u saying this out loud. thank you. and respect.
and i'll go watch the rest.
Was the use of the phrase "oh my science" ironic here?
I remember I was doing a thesis on a welding method that has just has just recently gained traction. So apart from a lot of patents there was not really much information or research to look at. I remember having two reputable academic books open side by side, one was a welding handbook and the other was a book about advanced manufacturing techniques. Both of these books said the opposite thing about the waste material from the welding method. I was so surprised, I am almost certain someone was just talking nonsense but I couldn't tell who. In the end I just went with the book that had the highest citation count, even though my selection process wasn't relevant to anything, I was just tired and had a deadline.
My folks were both academics. Dad was a math. professor (period after math. because it is an abbreviation😂,) mom was a neuroscience researcher at a university med. school (PhD in pharmacology.) I watched your video to learn what you had to say…and, yes, I recognize everything you put forward here.
Regarding “students as customers,” yes, indeed. I actually was aware of this (because of my parents) during my undergrad in the late ‘80’s/early ‘90’s. My second to last semester I did very little work, skipped class a lot. In the end, I had a solid D average. I received a letter from school telling me that I was kicked out for low grades.
As it happened, I was getting ready to go on a semester abroad, which was an exchange program between my university and the college in Europe I was supposed to attend. Tuition, on my part, had already been paid. I also only needed 3 more credits to graduate, even with the poor showing that second to last semester, and had already been working in my field of study for 3 years, so I had loads of contacts and a line on an entry level professional position.
I wrote a letter to the administration pointing out these things, that I had already paid for my last semester (which was 12 hours,) that I only needed 3 hours to graduate, and that I already had a job waiting for me which did not require a degree in anything to accept. I said that it would not benefit the university to kick me out, it would not hurt me at all, and even with my horrible showing the previous semester, I still would have an acceptable GPA to graduate.
I left for my semester abroad as planned, without having heard from the administration. I told my friends who also went on the exchange about how,I had been “kicked out of school” for grades because I thought it was funny. They were all shocked and stressed about it.
I explained to them that the university is a business and told them what I had written in my letter to the administration. They were astonished and dubious about whether they would decide in my favor because it did not follow the stated rules.
I said I wasn’t worried. Those of us who were set to graduate together did so after completing our internships. I along with everyone else. We all laughed about it. They could not believe it worked out the way it did and asked me why I was so certain it would.
I said, “both of my parents work in academia. That’s how I knew.”😂
Good for you for being so privileged
@@itsgonnabeanaurfromme you missed my point entirely. I do not deny that I was privileged in many ways. My folks were very smart and pillars of our community. They were also terrible parents.
80% true in France too : Universities are state subsidized so we have leniency to fail a bit more, but not as much as would be required (like 3 year students are almost ignorant of their field), and the job market is more advertised than what you describe (to the point we had an entire module on job prospect during the very first semester of university). The rest is pin point accurate.
As someone who worked in academia and still does lecturing and some supporting research at a "prestigious uni" in Switzerland, I can fully agree with most points here. I never had any interest or ambition in having a career at uni - I just did stuff I enjoyed and some people seemed to like it and give me a PhD and jobs in research and lecturing. It being Switzerland the salary is bombastic, so I just followed the interesting bread crumbs and I have my own company now. I was lucky enough to have an amazing boss who is the most integer person I have ever seen, even after a decade of closely working with him I kept being impressed about he really is "all of it". A brilliant researcher and a really kind human being who stands behind his students and his team with all his might and defends them even against "higher powers" if the occasion arises, without flinching. Absolute unicorn. The only point that (luckily) doesn't apply to my case is the "job prospects". Our engineering students basically always find employment pretty easily and on a large scale. I have friends in Formula 1 R&D, Medi-Tech, consulting software engineering, and even banking. It seems ridiculous to me how far the reach seems to be, so I don't need to tell them about bad prospects. At least not until now, fingers crossed.
Also helps to have a prestigious uni name backing these students when they go to search for jobs. It's not always guaranteed even with top grades if your university is midgrade or lower.
@@Blaisem yes that is absolutely true. having a "top 10 of the world uni" diploma helps. although as a side note, i find these rankings pretty silly, a shame they even exist... the "net bad" they do outweights the "net good": all unis start chasing the parameters (such as "publish till drop dead") that get them higher in the rankings instead of focusing on good research AND good teaching. as being a researcher and lecturer at such a "top uni" i vote for stopping this ranking nonsense... there are people far smarter and more skilled than me at "unknown" unis. this one just happened to be close to where i grew up...
@@amarug That's a modest and charitable perspective.
In my field in Computer Science, papers often leave out edge cases, because they want to sell their own implementation commercially that contains fixes for them. You can't simply implement what they described in the paper and then use it in a product, it'll break.
For my Political Science dissertation, my professor (the head of the department) just told jokes and screwed around all term. It was the last thing you did before you graduated and the whole class was one paper you did independently, so I didn't think anything of it.
Half way through the term, he started joking about how the school only kept the major available because they were mandated to. I asked why we don't have classes on some of the programs for campaigning like we'll need to know for that work and he answered "who's gonna pay for that? 🤣🤣". It then sunk in how useless the degree was I had pursued and I realized his layed-back attitude was because he didn't have to pretend to care with us like he did for his other classes.
I got a field director job after college and asked how much my degree factored into my hire and my campaign manager answered "zero". College was a total scam and complete waste of my time. I 100% regret it.
A colleague and I were just talking about putting names on papers with no contribution.
I remember my first lecture in my field. The lecturer said look to the person on your left, look to the person on your right. One of you might work in this field. Sadly, now we cannot get enough people in our field.
This field is?
I got to know a young lady that used to work in a cafe that I visited. She was about to go to university to study physics at the time and we got into conversations about physics and engineering, which is my own speciality. I happened to see her over Christmas, now in her final year. It was pretty clear that she hadn't received much in the way of career guidance on what opportunities a physics degree offered. As you said, the answer is not much on its own, but it is a gateway to a huge variety of options, nearly all of which require at least one additional qualification and/or stepping stone to reach the end point.
I spent a few hours just listing all the options for physicists that I had come across during my career which has been focused within industry with strong links to academia. I am sure that my list is incomplete and it only lists the first level of pathways, but I am baffled that there seems to be a dearth of information to assist graduates on how they can use their academic investment to create fulfilling careers.
For what it is worth, here is the cursory list of career options open to a graduate physicist that came to mind for my young friend, nearly all of them involve another degree or postgraduate qualification. It is very 'top level' but more than her university careers advisors provided. The next step is to select those topics that are of interest and then expand knowledge about them by activities such as attending symposiums and trade shows.
GRADUATE PHYSICIST
TECHNICIAN
SALES
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (Computer Science Degree)
DIGITAL TWINS
FINANCIAL MODELLING
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING
SCIENTIFIC CIVIL SERVICE
RESEARCH ADVISER
LAW DEGREE
PATENT ATTORNEY (BA)
MARKETING DEGREE
MARKETEER
PUBLICATIONS
BUSINESS DEGREE ( MBA )
INVESTMENT ANALYST
STARTUP OF OWN BUSINESS
MEDICAL SCIENCE DEGREE (MSc)
MEDICAL PHYSICIST
MEDICAL DEGREE (MD)
GP OR SPECIALIST
ACADEMIA (MSc & PhD)
RESEARCHER
LECTURER
INDUSTRY
TEACHING (PGCE)
TEACHER
TRAINER
INDUSTRY
R & D
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
MARKET ANALYST
FIELD SERVICES
What stupid comment from someone who isn't a physics grad. And your really going to suggest LITERALLY DIFFERENT DEGREES as potential career pathways? My god you can say anyone with an undergrad in arts or science can do any of that. You fucked up by picking engineer because you're too confident about eng. to apply theory in the field as a real researcher if someone hasn't already done the calculations and the trial and assume all the risk.
@@Juxtaposed1Nmotion You really need some help with your medical condition. I have personally observed physicists follow career paths in all those areas over the course of my working life. As for being just an engineer, I have several further degrees in various subjects, including a doctorate in mathematics. I am also member of the UK government panel that assesses the progress of quantum photonics research - conducted by post doctoral physicists. You sound like just the sort of physicist that we try to remove from the system because they waste resources.
@Certyfikowany Przewracacz Hulajnóg Elektrycznych Engineers quite often end up doing applied physics. An example that springs to mind is the design and fabrication of SPAD arrays which was executed by engineers, because the physicists didn't have the skills to convert the physical principles into reality.
@Certyfikowany Przewracacz Hulajnóg Elektrycznych I regularly review applied research proposals from physicists. It is uncommon to come across submissions that have any sort of project strategy and even rarer to see a coherent risk register. The amount of effort reviewing the literature for existing alternative solutions is usually inadequate. I find most of the mathematics presented to me in these submissions fairly easy, although I do have to read the appropriate literature for the physics. My supervisor was an engineer, he ended up as professor of mathematics in the same college. Imperial, London.
@Certyfikowany Przewracacz Hulajnóg Elektrycznych Well, I think we have come full circle here. The fact of the matter is that a physics degree is a very useful discipline that opens up a whole world of opportunities, but not in theoretical physics without a lot more work. As I stated, the list I presented is a record of what I have observed.
I am pretty sure my supervisor didn't look down on engineers, he often had discourses with the leading applied mathematicians of his day. The line between applied mathematics and engineering is very fuzzy in many areas.
I don't understand why physicists conducting applied research imagine they should not be subjected to the same constraints as say, applied mathematicians, when it comes to the disbursement of funds derived from taxation. They are no more entitled to public funds than any other discipline and those that approve their research have a duty to the taxpayer to ensure funds are spent in a way that is beneficial to society.
In my experience, only a small number of researchers deserve a 'carte blanche' and this is invariably provided by payments made by institutions such as the Royal Society in the UK.
I hope that you found good use for the skills that you acquired during your PhD studies and that you look back on your time in academia with fond memories, as I do.
I once said in a LinkedIn comment that the institution I worked on has awful IT infrastructure and writing code is a headache unless you just use your own hardware. Got an email from the dean and a visit from our marketing department (that Institute has one). I left 2 years later, the IT situation was completely unchanged with the one exception of finally upping our mailboxes to 10gb from 2.
I'm an admin assistant in a research lab at one of the US's top Medical Schools. Nothing has drained me of compassion and empathy faster than working with these people. Nearly the entire lot of research scientists are a bunch of overgrown children, whining and pissing themselves that they haven't won a prestigious award. (The number of scientists who want to win a Nobel Prize and it being their SOLE motivation is beyond depressing.) These people don't care about you, your health, your family. They don't care about making the world a better place. All the care about is making money and getting fancy titles. It's disgusting. I have a hard time blaming anti-intellectuals for not trusting science.
The first time I followed my integrity to demonstrate that a student had plagiarized, I was overwhelmed with how much work this created for me administratively to prove this plagiarism. Even though the follow-up was not done by me, the burden of proof was tremendous on me. It turned out that I was the third professor to go through this process with that same student, which resulted in the student's expulsion - but I knew none of that when I made my own case, given that the record was confidential. Sadly, I now think twice before I choose to accuse a student of plagiarism, knowing how much time this process eats up; but I still need to do this when I am faced with plagiarism, because otherwise such students may eventually become my colleagues...
It should require some work on your part if you accuse a student of plagiarism. That is a serious accusation. Likewise, this is something you should make the effort to address. It is a serious breach of ethics. Lastly, your school handled it correctly by expelling the student for multiple offenses. I'm really not sure why your whining about having to do your job, or why people have been up voting your comment.
@@daithi1966presumably a person is already 100% utilized doing their job, and “doing the right thing” should not cause you to have a significant amount of overtime. There should be serious burdens of proof, but burdens of paperwork isn’t really the same thing
@@daithi1966 The guy obviously did something not much people do because it is very strenuous. If the process was simpler or if people had more time to give to such matters, more people would do it. Telling somebody they are whining when they did the right thing will not improve a disfunctional situation.
terrifying
@@daithi1966We are finite
I grew up in a household with an academic parent (and went to innumerable department parties) so I have an inside scoop behind the curtain. One thing you can add to the list... professors can't dock a student's grade for poor writing or tell a student they write badly, no matter how atrocious their grammar and style are. When I was in high school, said parent was grading a stack of final papers and I grabbed a few that were already graded and started reading them. It was some of the worst writing I'd ever seen, and I wasn't even an adult yet. I turned to them and said "Your students can't write." and they replied, "I know."
It's amazing, depending of the field, how many just assess content. I write my rubrics that explicitly assess grammar and punctuation to ensure students understand that, without it, their content won't make sense.
Unfortunately, this is tied to the 'don't fail students' angle many universities push that another commenter mentioned earlier.
This has everything to do with race. Ironic in a video like this, people still can't be honest with themselves.
@@zwan1886please elaborate
@@zwan1886Found the EJMR user
There seem to be declining standard in eduction. I recall going through the education system (still am), there seem to be to be a lack of purpose, such as "why am I learning this" and general lack of structure from the teachers. It's like playing a chess match, except this person could randomly change their rule to however they please, how is this right? Then, as we seen after the warring state period came to a conclusion, the system for exchange was all over the place; there need to be a standardize expectation. I'm not advocating for the same debacle we witness with the standardize test, but it's also to a degree necessary. It's frustrating because not every person is getting the same quality of education. Rather one agree or not, certain teachers and professors are simply a matter of fact better. It's in my frustration that it can feel like a roll of dice at times. How am I purpose to be purpose, to say I have an associate or bachelor when I feel the most undeserving of them all.
That point about not failing students who don't do the work at all is upsetting. I got a B.A. back in the 1970s. After I retired in 2015 I wnt back to school to work on a second degree. Studying is important to me. I always do the readings. I take part in all discussions no matter how tired I am. I always study hard for, and pass, the quizzes and exams, and work hard on my essays and other assignments. So, the lowest mark I ever get is a B. I figure I deserve that B, based upon my work. The thought that someone might sleep through lectures and scrabble an essay together at the last minute and barely pass the quizzes and get a B is infuriating to me. Education, for me, is about learning. Who is learning in such a situation? In my opinion you learn by doing the work, not by just living through the course.
Spectacularly true. Students as customers has become the rule and standards usually in name only at many institutions. Some wonderful exceptions exist.
The job market comment is also spot on.
This video should be required for all grad school applicants.
As a PhD dropout, I never got all that deep into academia, but I was there long enough to know everything you said is completely true.
I appreciate you making this video. The general public has very little understanding of how many issues there are in academia, particularly in Science and Math. Hopefully more discussions like this can happen in the future.
Open Secret: There is a departmental hierarchy. Some is dependent on the University perhaps a department is well respected or known, other rankings seem to be more universal and these departments will always have a lot of power. If you aren't in one of those departments, your department will not cross them and your head may even be very obsequious to anyone in those departments.
interesting, I bet geology isn't very high on that hierarchy.
For that last one, at least in the US that "trendy application" is part of the Broader Impact section required in NSF proposals.
BTW, I had a chemist fried tell me that it's standard practice to report the best yield out of multiple trials, even if it's way off the average value.
My former boss gave authorship to people simply so that they won't be peer reviewers. Rather they be in the tent than piss on it from outside.
So glad that I’m in the field of practical application of knowledge. No messing around with peer-reviewed papers. The result is the result.
Much of the content in this video was made clear to me after a year or two in undergrad. It’s a big part of why, after finishing my degree, I pursued a tech job instead.
I enjoyed physics and still love learning about it, but I did not want to play the politics game.
I had two coauthors whose only reason to be on my paper was they partly funded my stay in an American university. Later in my tenure track elsewhere, I was required to get signatures of my coauthors on what they contributed and those two refused. I understand why but I could get into trouble because of them. Luckily, the dean understood the situation when I explained what happened.
Double blind peer review:
Authors: "As we previously shown [3]..."
Unfortunately, double blind also doesn't work if the field is small. I can identify the research group based on the experimental section of their paper
Self-citations should be temporarily anonymized for peer-review. The same for grant information etc. But in some fields, this does not help either, because the community is so small that people know each others’ research anyway.
"I did do nothing for the paper"
I'm just writing one with a PhD buddy of mine and we'd actually be grateful if one of our supervisors would be on the paper for less scrutiny in the peer review process. But they don't want to be on since they only provided supervision. Fun reverse problem!
Edit: Paper is published, didn't have any problems in Peer Review, seems we did a great job! (Or the reviewer just didn't care)
Honestly, I feel this. I literally want one professor's name on my paper even if he doesn't do anything. Why? Because he's famous, and having your name next to a famous person's name is a leg up.
I am a soon 4th-year Ph.D. student, and although I have not been in academia for a long time, I totally agree. Fortunately I will leave academia after the Ph.D., hoping to find better prospects.
The first point is something I used to wonder after my experiences with certain people but have never got a concrete answer. Interesting to know this is common in Academia.
I wonder, is there any self-made scholar out there, who is so passionate about finding his answer, and does his research at home, without being attached to any university, and still be able to publish his paper in a recognised academic journal?
Never say never, but chances are only the most desperate academic journal will accept that, which can actually be harmful.
Or you can do what Don Knuth did, and approach a commercial publisher and have them publish your (academic paper) commercial research for you.
Most scholarship is grounded on cooperation, and most cooperation occurs in places with more specialists (aka universities). Doing research without being attached to a university is pretty pointless and counter-productive. If you were that passionate, you'd generally just bite the bullet and get on with it
@@epicmarschmallow5049 there a lot of subjects in this world are more to theory, which don't require much experiment and application but thought process, eg: physics, mathematics, economy. And there are a lot of people in this world are already financial free.
This is kind of a cheating answer, but there are lots of retired academics doing this.
Then, there are lots of folks working in the tech industry that publish in ML/AI, both on behalf of the company or doing fun projects with friends who most likely are attached to universities.
Now someone who is entirely working alone without at least a history with the university is quite rare if for no other reason it's just really difficult to pick up and learn the topic deeply enough to do publishable work and learn the ins and outs of academic publishing.
It's not entirely clear to me what that person's incentive would be to publish in an academic journal when they could put things on arxiv, or a blog for that matter so you could have a more robust discussion than you probably would with a peer reviewer.
Yes, Eliezer Yudkowsky