I think it’s funny how academia selects people based on their scientific aptitude and research experience and then puts them into positions where they have to spend much of their time teaching (something they may not have the aptitude for and definitely aren’t trained to do) and writing grant proposals. The more experience people have, the less time they have to do research (with the exception of a relatively small number of celebrity professors).
With that said, I’m not sure how things could be changed for the better. I’d say that some training in teaching would be good, but I think most academics don’t actually want that. Being a TA was already an unwelcome imposition back when I was a grad student, so I wouldn’t have wanted to spend more time away from my research to become a better TA.
It’s obvious how to make it better: spend as much money on scientific progress as we do on figuring out how to blow brown people up.
I wouldn’t be opposed to more funding but there would still have to be some way to decide who to fund and making a good case that one’s research is worthwhile is always going to take a long time.
Maybe pay people who’s only job it is is to talk to the researchers and write the proposal for them? Someone smart enough to get stuff explained to them, but with the communication skills to boil that down into something the money people can understand?
It’s a pretty common position in software engineering because programmers and business people are pretty bad at communicating with each other.
No, it only takes a long time because there’s so little to go around. Do you think defense funding takes months and years to award grants? No.
There are literally decades-long proposals, initial R&D and prototyping for big defense contracts.
No, they aren’t taking years to award a new contract for the paper provider, but they are for new weapons and vehicles.
Yeah because they’re so big. This guy is not asking for a grant for 2000ppl, multi-year project around nuclear fusion, it’s just him and a couple students mucking around in a petri dish
Create gov science centers for each major branch of science, provide funding. Allow them to delegate within their narrower and narrower fields with loose requirements such as x-y% is salary a-b% is resources, and maybe something like each new study can get no less than $z and no More than $r.
I’m not saying this is perfect but spending more money towards it in general and allowing some branch delegation of funding would hopefully at least resolve the grant writing part and ensure salary. Though I’m not sure how one would ensure that they are being productive and not doing frivolous things on purpose. Perhaps q amount of hours a year must go to a gov decided research project and the rest is up to the researcher.
Maybe funding for a project is aquired through hours contributed to projects the gov deems with a standard for high social benefit? I.E. You help with the research on this new hydro electric tech (regardless of outcome because we feel it’s an important study topic) and we pay ($p per hour spent on hydro tech) towards a study of your choice.
I wonder what you’d might call that “figuring out” thing
I sure wouldn’t call it scientific progress, if that’s what you’re implying.
Science isn’t just about nice stuff
Why not?
It’s just how the term is defined. Blame English language users, I guess
Ah yes. Nice science and evil science.
You’d have to overhaul the funding system drastically.
Measuring scientific output by publications and citations is useless at best, but it’s easy so that’s how you’re measured.
Writing grant proposals is 95% useless bullshit, there’s no useful content in the proposals, but it gives a false sense of objectivity and competitiveness, so that’s how you’re funded.
Thing is, most of the world operates like that. Corporations measure useless KPIs and demand empty reports. There’s an entire caste of administrators whose entire existence is founded on this overhead to exist. I don’t see a way to change that without a very very serious disruption (that is, a major war, not a startup).
Some researchers make terrible teachers. It’s ridiculous to me.
Maybe some graduate-level classes need to be taught by a researcher in the field and so students will simply have to deal with any deficiencies that researcher may have as a teacher, but IMO undergrads will probably learn more at a community college because the professors are actually there to teach.
I still wouldn’t recommend the community college because the diploma from there won’t get the graduate as much respect, but I do know a community college graduate with a bachelor’s who makes way more than I do. She had trouble getting her first job but once she had some work experience, employers cared a lot less about where she studied. I also know another graduate who got her associate’s at a community college and then transferred to somewhere more prestigious; she saved money without compromising her education.
Not to mention people managers. Oof.
Oh yeas definitely. Lab directors make the worst managers.
It’s almost like the two skill sets are not actually equivalent.
I played the game for a long time. Then I went to industry and never looked back.
I totally, totally get people who stay in academia. I’ve had and in a way still have the dream. But: the struggle is just as bad if not worse than industry, while the money in industry is much, much better.
Any recommendations for how to break through into industry?
It will be largely dependent on your industry. But I do have a couple general comments:
-
If you’re coming from academia, you almost certainly value your degree more than an employer will, at least at first. Certainly, some industry positions will require a Masters and some may even be PhD preferred. But this is going to be an extreme minority of positions, such that there are far more people with MAs and PhDs than positions (same problem as professorships in academia). You will almost certainly need to cast a wider net than you might feel is appropriate.
-
Getting a foot in the door is almost always more important than finding the perfect role early on. Plan to iteravely improve your positions and “fall up.” Just as lecturing or adjunct positions are a reality of academia, job hopping is increasingly a part of industry life. If you do it right (try and stay in positions around 2 years, then start looking at other options) you’ll get a significant raise every time you hop – typically way more than you would get staying put. The perfect role may come, but it won’t be your first. Probably not your second either, so focus on building industry experience rather than one specific job.
-
Since you’ll need to cast a wider net, you may be applying for roles which do not require postgrad stuff. It will be necessary to show transferrable skills rather than relying on academic experience or accolades. I’ve felt that my academic experience has been helpful everywhere, but people don’t tend to get hired for that alone for most positions. It is imperative that you are able to show your worth in a way that is not pointing at a piece of paper. From a hiring standpoint, if it is between you with degree(s) and another applicant who may have far less academically but showed the skills, the employer will pick the other person most times, because they likely suspect you want more money on the basis of having the degrees.
Just a few things that come to mind. But of course, once you get those first couple roles under your belt, it’s a different story. “This person has years of good experience and results AND they have a PhD?” That’s when you start looking for the perfect role.
And especially for #2: job hopping is infinitely easier if you can land remote roles. I have been lucky enough to have been in remote roles for nearly 10 years. The same logic applies: show your worth. And, take that remote contract to start. The need to build experience is annoying, but it is a necessity, and if you’re coming from academia, it’s one thing for which you are automatically behind the curve.
Great advice. Thank you!
-
Apply. I myself was contacted by a recruiter on LinkedIn. It’s absolutely normal to switch.
My company hires academics all the time. If anyone knows anything about incremental sheet metal forming, PM me.
I think Arts and Sciences folks need to team up and fuck up Commerce bros.
Deal of the day: tech bros and finance bros fuck shit up for everybody. Take it or have it shoved down your throat.
How do you define Tech bros? I lump them in Commerce category in my head.
Computer Science/Engineering people I have encountered are more into liberatory politics (whether they overtly acknowledge it/are awareof it or not)
I define tech bros as people who want to solve every single problem with an app. World hunger? I’m building an app for it, bro. Climate crisis? I’m building an app for it.
For instance, the number of COVID trackers built in 2020 was ridiculous. These websites/apps didn’t really make any meaningful difference, but the people who built it speak about it like it did.
Also see: accelerationism.
really? did you not know? I spent one year in a PhD program and although I dreamed my whole life of researching the natural world and teaching I realized I really like eathing and having climate controlled shelter.
Why I noped out of academia for industry.
Yea, I figured this out my first year of classes.
It’s not like it’s unknown, and I started college in the 80’s.
Got my bachelor’s and wanted to go to PhD, but realizing this has me strongly considering skipping it. I want to do the research, but holy shit, there’s so much other bullshit, and it’s so fucking competitive for funding. Since I’m considering an international move, I also have to consider how stable my position will be so I don’t get deported. I want to push science forward, but I dunno if I can wade through all the bullshit to get my chance to…
If someone doesn’t know this about academia, their reasearch skills are not that great.
It has meme status at this point.
I used to read this comic 20 years ago https://phdcomics.com/
I feel personally attacked by this!
Ok, but what good has ‘science’ ever done. /s
