Remix.run Logo
rwyinuse 2 days ago

It seems that these days academia is mostly garbage for anyone who wants things like money, family or a healthy work-life balance.

njjnjj 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Throwaway account. Yes that is exactly what happened to me. Figured I'd do a PhD so took a research / part time teaching position after masters. Terrible money, demanding job, knee deep in politics. After about 12 months I said fuck it and went and got a job for 4x the money and a 35 hour week. No regrets.

kleiba 2 days ago | parent [-]

How did you get that job? I've read similar stories a couple of times here on HN yet I'm struggling to do the same. My main road block: not really having acquired the right skill set for industry after having focused for year to fine-tune my CV for academic positions. This is now kind of biting me in my rear side: I cannot do the rat wheel of academia any more, am not exactly young any more either, am sort of highly skilled in CS academia but not really suitable for a lot of CS industry positions.

njjnjj 2 days ago | parent [-]

I was on electrical engineering side of things. Honestly I looked for companies that had large quantities of engineering lay offs about a year beforehand and tried finding contacts and calling them directly. Turns out there were plenty of departments in the shit and needing hires. Landed a position at a defence company.

CS I would have no idea about. I work for a company that does software now but tends not to hire any CS grads.

mustafa_pasi 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or even research experience. In many fields industry is now years ahead and academia lacks the funds and the man power to compete. AI and biotech are two examples.

tpoacher 2 days ago | parent [-]

I wouldn't say this is the case, though it probably looks like this at a superficial level, and is a trendy soundbyte that seems to have gotten a life of its own lately. Plus a lot of what you call 'industry' is in fact driven by universities, e.g. via collaborations or spin-out companies. Deepmind, e.g., a notable example when people point to Google as a research lead in the field, was effectively almost exclusively driven by Oxford academics through their university positions (at least in the beginning, I haven't kept up).

The bigger problem is universities (are forced to?) behave like corporations more and more as opposed to academic institutions, in order to survive silly politics (national and not) but without having the requisite corporate infrastructure and corresponding personnel. Instead, all jobs are offloaded to academics, and made part of their "progress and development report" or whatnot as the main driving factor. Which then dilutes the quality of both teaching and research, cuts down on creative time and replaces it with mountains of bureaucracy and counterproductive deadlines, forces people to cut corners just to keep up with it all, and eventually burns them out.

Example: we have recently been asked to enter a cleaning rota for the office, because management fired the cleaners. And I think it's ridiculous and a sign of things to come, but I do it anyway. I don't know if refusing to clean will somehow find its way on your probation record as "not good academic citizenship", but it's not something I'll refuse to do anyway because I know everyone's in the same boat and I don't want to cause trouble for my team. But, then this behaviour gets normalised, and honestly, at this point academics might as well start mowing the lawn and cleaning the toilets too.

But academia still has better structures / people built around attacking the more 'creative', less profit-driven problems, whereas industry is has different incentives, which seriously constrains where that research can go in its own way. And a lot of the time, when you look under the hood, industry claims are little more than hot air trying to get a quick buck, or they're the last little brick building on years of academic work and then going full PR and taking all the credit; whereas academia does things "slow" and steady for a reason.

xhkkffbf 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think traditionally it was for people who were unmarried. Hence its connection to the church. So expecting enough to raise a family is a relatively new idea.

aSanchezStern 2 days ago | parent [-]

Not sure what the timeline on that is, but the University of Washington had housing specifically for PhD students with families in the 60s/70s IIRC

derbOac 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, a lot of public universities have had them. My knowledge of them at the two places I'm familiar with is that they're being phased out. One of them they were literally slated for demolition to make room for some other facilities (sport facilities I think) and another is still there but they opened up to other students and I think there was discussion of replacing them too, although they're still there as far as I know.

My overall sense of universities is that, like a lot of places, they increasingly see people as disposable and don't invest in them as much unless they're unusually financially profitable. Student housing is probably a bit different because people are marrying and having kids at older ages, but in the cases I know of the housing and housing cooperatives were still being used and liked. The subtext of discussions that I recall was that this wasn't enough, that the land needs to be put to use making more money for the university rather than supporting graduate students.

xhkkffbf 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

By relatively new, I meant "within the last 100 or so years." Princeton only ceased being a Presbyterian school in 1920. Certainly some graduates went on to other things before then, but the old model goes back hundreds of years.

s1artibartfast 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

2 days ago | parent [-]
[deleted]