I think there's a certain type of person that is particularly attracted to advanced work in science and technology -- the systems purist, who believes strongly that the world "should" work in mostly objective ways. This is a strength in that the world doesn't change very much without these idealists pushing for their vision, but it's also a horrible weakness because these sorts of people don't tend to internalize that any project among groups of humans is going to be messy and inefficient and frustratingly subjective. The successful people adapt, and learn to bend the messy ecosystem to their will. The others...don't (they do things like writing dramatic, self-important missives about how the system is failing them, and cc it to the entire department. ahem.)

If you make it all the way to the end of a PhD program and you haven't realized that it's mostly about how to make steady, measurable progress in a messy, complicated, political world, you haven't yet reached the end of the process.

This critique is well written and was interesting for me to read, having just finished my PhD a few months ago. I can relate to a number of the issues he raised. However, I must take issue with his point (8). While I think it certainly is important to make sure that academics contribute back to larger society in some capacity, I think it is a bit premature to conclude that this means turning the focus towards more applied work. There are simply too many examples of basic research with seemingly no value to anything of practical interest that turn out to be very value in industry and medicine some years down the road to dismiss incubation of purely theoretical work offhand. I think this fact is more or less appreciated by society at large, and they are very happy to support Edward Witten and Terry Tao and so forth, with the understanding that it is a long term investment with some large expected return. Of course these return have long tails, so most results will be useless, but that is beside the point if you are interested in total returns.

EDIT: typos

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that much of how Academia works today is inevitable. How many people are truly excellent in any job? Always only a small percentage. Let's say that in Academia the percentage is especially high, as high as 20%. What are the other 80% supposed to do? They have to represent something that they are not, because people outside of Academia must believe that 100% of Academia are excellent (otherwise they would revolt where all their tax money goes). Everything bad in Academia follows from this.

Some journals, Nature being the most notable, chase impact factor above all else. The only thing they truly care about is that the papers they publish get cited. This means highly original work, which frequently doesn't get cited much for a long time, is less desirable than a turn-the-crank paper from a respected name.

Researchers have been taught to prize Nature publications (thanks to the same flawed metric of merit) and spend a disproportionate amount of time submitting papers to Nature. When you write a paper you choose your target journal, and writing for Nature means you need to avoid rocking the boat too much, because they receive so many submissions that one minor criticism from a referee will torpedo your paper, even if that criticism is demonstrably wrong. Sometimes invalid criticisms are made by referees who are jealous, threatened, or merely lazy, but the editor has so many other submissions to deal with that he/she won't take the time to evaluate and understand the referee recommendations. Real science invites debate, but Nature's editors run screaming from it.

Why do researchers care so much about playing this game if it compromises their writing and even their research? Even a tenured prof needs to hustle for funding if he wants to do more than teach and sit in his office. PI's are salesmen even more than they're managers! The very language itself is twisted at the core when applying for grants. The average researcher or project must be superlative in every way on paper or no money is going to come. You can't say you're doing something out of pure curiosity and the chances of it spawning another silicon valley are remote. It has to be imminently commercializable with potential for massive, revolutionary impact! Honesty will destroy you. If every research proposal delivered what it promised the World would be one giant Palo Alto. We would all be better off if some better way to allocate resources were found, but that's no easy task!

As for the PhD student... There is more than meets the eye here. You don't walk away from 4 years of work in the last month without reason. Perhaps his thesis is a hopeless mess. Perhaps his relationship with his supervisor is hostile. Perhaps he's mentally ill. The last few months are ridiculously stressful after all! It's also very possible he or she is a lot more than one month from finishing. Hopefully there are people who care about this person and will help him/her get back on track and finish. The game is flawed, but the best way to ensure nobody wins is to refuse to play it.

We've all been there. I think you have to either be purposely oblivious or one of the extremely lucky ones blessed with a true research environment, but it is impossible for the new generation of scientists to not see the writing on the wall. Every single student is suffering from the symptoms, yet very few are doing things to change it.

One note, echoing the original author - for myself personally, the letters 'PhD' no longer carry the same meaning anymore. If anything, it's become an additional signal that you once bought into a system that is selling you short. I still respect those who have PhD's, but only for what it once meant, not for what it means now.

Universities as we dream them, like Humboldt did, are alas a relic of the 19th century. They’re a lost romantic desire, like the inspiring anecdote (regardless of its historical truth) of a student Niels Bohr and a professor Ernest Rutherford debating over truth as equals.

Universities as we know them since the 1960s evolved into cash-burning bureaucracies. Soon, academia may evolve again — open sourced learning, who knows?

Until the age of enlightenment the bigger part of scientific endeavors was done by dilettanti, unpaid, un-institutionalized “hobbyists” and other philosophes. We will return to those days — perhaps, and need be, at the expense of “democratic access” to learning.

But the ideal of a community of intellectuals devoted to truth and science will live on in the honest hearts of young scientists (and self-employed hackers). Kudos to the courageous heart of that young PhD-student for reminding the academic managerial caste of our ideal!

Much of what is bemoaned here is simply a consequence of the fact that science is done by humans and generally costs money, so there is a necessary component of business-type activities (networking, fundraising, marketing, management). Scientists also have human qualities such as egos, desire for money, power, respect and the rest. Why should we be different, or held to a higher standard?

Additionally, it's really hard to do original research. First off, really original good ideas are hard to come by; this problem is also not restricted to science or scientists. Then when new ideas come, they are often difficult or impossible to translate into scientific output, because of other constraints, such as lacking good enough data to test hypotheses. And then they typically fail, despite being great ideas. Really good, original, CORRECT ideas are far more rare.

Furthermore, science would be much worse off if researchers worked like the author would prefer. If everyone spent 10 years without publishing, working on a completely original problem, there is zero replication. Additionally, if the experiment or approach fails, as they usually do, little is left. So do you publish negative results, and then move on to the next decade's problem?

Instead, it's better that the system works the way it does. People do 'bandwagon research', which really is replication. They take the same idea, and apply somewhat different methods, or different datasets, or whatever. And they publish this as often as they can get away with.

Then, one can look at the aggregate body of work and evaluate the ideas and methods better. There is more redundancy in the system, and because the papers are smaller, the setbacks are much smaller in the case of failure, and there is a paper trail (so to speak) marking progress along the way. These smaller, more digestible, incremental papers are also more useful to other researchers, who may only be interested in a small part of the work--the methods, or some of the data, or whatever. It would slow everyone down if the only publications were these giant monographs that came out once or twice a decade.

It may feel like people are only working on small, unoriginal ideas because many papers look like this, but it's really important to zoom out and see how things fit together. Science is basically a Monte Carlo simulation, and having lots and lots of small and fast iterations covers the space much more efficiently.

Want to slightly disagree with this though: "Apart from feeling the gross unfairness of the whole thing – the students, who do the real work, are paid/rewarded amazingly little, while those who manage it, however superficially, are paid/rewarded amazingly much – the PhD student is often left wondering if they are only doing science now so that they may themselves manage later. The worst is when a PhD who wants to stay in academia accepts this and begins to play on the other side of the table."

The same thing happens in industry, except that you're paid more, and your work is directly relevant to the world you see (and not just a journal/conference where it is never read again.)

contrast with the article and discussion at:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6353957

The problem is that you have to pay a bunch of parasites to support the few who are actually advancing the human race.

Academia has become a business, in which the priorities for research institutions are grants first, publications second and teaching a distant third. But this development does not imply that the way the university conducts business is optimal or desirable. (One sees this smug attitude in the comments in the form, "academia is a business, get over it.")

Graduate students, postdocs and research staff are exploited. One can legitimately ask whether the institutionalized scientific method must necessarily exploit graduate students, postdocs and research staff to maintain standards of scientific rigor. Cannot the the university act as a gatekeeper without requiring inexpensive contingent laborers to subsidize faculty and administrator salaries? Why must limiting access to networks of scholars and scholarship involve such oppressive opportunity costs?

The purpose of a PhD is to provide training in how to do research; most PhD students do not change the world or even make a large contribution to a research area - that's not the point. There are standard texts about PhDs that explain this, and most supervisors recommend students read a few of those books at the beginning of their PhD.

As someone who has worked in both academic and industry, I can assure you that academia has not literally become a business, that academics still have great freedom, and that almost every academic I have ever met works hard and is motivated primarily by the goal of doing great work.

Contrary to the article, most significant research is not done by PhD students - hardly surprising - it is done by Research Associates and Research Fellows, under the supervision of professors and lecturers. That's in the UK at least, and job titles vary in other countries.

I find the anti-academia slant in tech circles to be quite strange. Many people think academia is "out of touch", but there is a lot of collaborative work between academia and industry, involving nearly all the large tech companies. I've never heard academics in Computer Science expressing any animosity towards those working in industry. It's strange, because academia has historically been and continues to be incredibly important in the tech industry; I'd like to see more collaboration and less of a schism.

https://cds.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2013/27/News%20Arti...

armies of graduate students and postdocs to do the nuts and bolts work, Asaadi says. That's fine, he says, so long as everybody understands the situation from the beginning. "When you're starting graduate school, is your advisor telling you, 'Look, you get this great skill set that will be transferable to other things outside of academic physics'?" Asaadi says. "Or are you being told, 'Just work hard and there will be something or other [in physics] in the end'? It seems like it's more of the latter." He adds, "This is where we got some pushback from advisors—it was seen as whining."

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previou...

"How should we make it attractive for them [young people] to spend [their prime, most productive first] 5,6,7 years in our field, be satisfied, learn about excitement, but finally be qualified to find other possibilities?" -- H. Schopper

The OP talks about a bunch of problems in academia, may of which stem from an attempt to run universities like corporations. In his article, Edsger Dijkstra explains why that's not a good idea.

PS: If you'd like to discuss this, I just submitted this article at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6358342

Not to mention sites like stack-overflow where the entire community helps each other with tons of problems no matter how trivial or how complicated.

The whole world really could learn alot from us

Is it relevant? Not sure any more given the loss of jobs to Asia and when the worker crosses 40. But it's been this way for as long as I've been aware.

Most of academia simply sets fire to money. The more given to one bureaucracy, the bigger the flame. Fusion research (DOE). Or in this case, not. It would be rather nice to see Skunk Works and or Polywell reach Q > 1, it would be one of the greatest engineering feats ever.

Also there needs to be some support for communities of art and philosophy, where those may get by better.

Finally, all profit or all conjecture makes Jane a dull girl. (Jack was out sick today.)

I hate the way we have to 'sell' research to compete for funding and prestigious publications. But my impression is that most researchers regard this as a necessary evil, not as their primary purpose. Maybe I've been lucky in my academic experiences (two UK universities, biology), but I met a lot of people who are still genuinely interested in the science. They play the salesman game, of course, because they have to, but they help their PhD students and postdocs, try to judge research from other groups objectively, and care about intellectual honesty. Some of the best are the emeritus professors, the ones who simply carried on researching instead of retiring.

Here's the secret: it is quite possible to get a permanent position with a reasonable teaching load at a reasonable university without lots of funding and without having to produce large numbers of publications in high-profile conferences/journals. Indeed the majority of the world's scientists do just this -- almost by definition, for otherwise selective journals/conferences/funding systems could not be selective: to be selective means to deny entry to the masses. The trick is to think long-term and build develop one's niche of science, until so much material of interest has been accumulated that something novel and substantial has become of it. In my experience, that takes a decade or two of an individual's labour. It's psychologically difficult to toil solitary for that long without positive community feedback (which in science really comes in form of grants and high-profile publications). But it is certainly possible. By the time you have created that niche, you can also create your own conferences/journals/prizes etc, and all of a sudden you are the eminent scientist in your field. That in turn makes it easy to get PhD students, grants etc.

Caveat: the above programme may not work so easily for pre-tenure academics at the top-prestige universities, or in fields that have very high start-up costs in terms of material and/or labour (e.g. high-energy physics). Fortunately, most of computer science is comparatively cheap though (needs only a laptop and an internet connection).

Given that this is a possible career path, and clearly many scientists who got famous only late in life, or posthumously, have had long periods of frustrating 'drought', one wonders if negative rants like that in the linked article, may not in part be a reflection of the authors lack of belief in his/her abilities.

Says who? Maybe this student has no interest in going into academia and does not see the point of completing a PhD program.

There are other points that are addressed in the opposite direction. Anyway it's good to have a wide variety of opinions floating around, makes it easier for us outsiders to get closer to 42...

As we cram more and more people into the same cities, the same companies, the same institutions of learning, they're going to experience some failures to scale. This is one of those failures. Academia becomes hyper-competitive. There aren't enough jobs. School becomes too expensive. Home prices outpace inflation and wage increases by a factor of three or more. The world is just much more competitive today, and it will continue to become even more competitive.

I sometimes think about my grandfather, now dead, who was a sales executive for a major clothing company in the 60s and 70s. He was making $50k in 1960. According to an inflation calculator, that would be nearly $400k today in base salary. It astounds me to reflect on this and the fact that he didn't even have a college degree. A similar job today would likely only go to a graduate of Harvard Business School, Wharton, or something similar. There were many others like him; you didn't have to be a business whiz extraordinaire to land such a job fifty years ago. You just had to be dedicated, hard-working, personable, and passionate, and everything else would follow. But the world was just not nearly as competitive back then.

The pessimistic answer is that idealists make very hard workers, such that by the time they become cynics they've already locked themselves into a career path and it's hard to get out of it.

It seems the problem we have with science being a business is the belief that money is fundamentally corrupting. I think that only applies to mismanaged money; it can also be seen as fundamentally enabling.

Survey papers are useful to other researchers. Minimum publishable units are a waste of research time, and the pressure to pad one's CV and get "results" (which actually means more papers) worsens the situation. It is even worse when a grad student is told that they were "scooped" because their half-finished MPU was published by someone else.