Self-Criticism and the Academy
theprofessorisin.com
theprofessorisin.com
But it troubles me that this author does not see a connection between her work ("reading “against the grain” of dominant cultural or critical texts [...] and identifying problematic elements in texts") and this atmosphere of "extraordinarily harsh and total self-criticism" that she rightly identifies as toxic.
There is nothing wrong with analyzing cultural or critical texts and offering new perspective on them. And I can't speak to this specific author's work, because I haven't read any of it.
But in my experience of reading a lot of this cultural criticism, it is rarely dispassionate analysis. It is usually passing harsh judgment on whatever it deems "problematic." This judgment is not always overt; it often takes the form of tying an entire history of slavery and wrong to the actions of anyone who is perceived as reinforcing any social pattern that can be tied to historical forms of oppression.
I have compassion for anyone who has gotten to the point that they can't recognize their own goodness and accomplishments. But how much of that result has come from subscribing to a system of thought where any misstep could mean that you too have become "problematic"?
These writers have constructed a new story of "original sin," but this time there is no Jesus to wash it all away. And their "Garden of Eden" -- a world where nothing is "problematic" -- is just as much of a fairy tale as Genesis.
Then there's basic science people shitting on engineering, which is probably one of the dumbest forms of elitism I've encountered.
And, there is the most significant hierarchy of all: which university you are affiliated with. Academics who hit it big in the tenure track job hunt quickly forget the role of luck in deciding which university hires them and shit on folks from lower ranked universities.
Frankly, the capitalist structure of industry discourages these kinds of hierarchies with egalitarian targets like revenue (and schmoozing) deciding your worth than other things.
In fact at AI conferences, the non-academics are way more hierarchical about academia than the people actually in academia are. Journalists, investors, recruiters, and industry consultants who show up to a conference like AAAI or ICML seem to really care about people's pedigrees, especially impressed by names like MIT and Stanford. Professors are more likely to choose what talks to go to based on sub-area, talk title, or knowing a specific person, rather than going by institutional affiliation.
But, once you get into the grants and peer review game, connections and credentials, unfortunately, matter a lot. It is not explicit in that no one says "hey you are from XYZ university, hence I am rejecting your paper." What happens commonly is that for peer-reviewers opinions are colored by your credentials. My hypothesis is this: if one were to control for quality of paper, a credentialed or pedigreed author's paper is likelier to get accepted than the non-credentialed ones.
There are many exceptions and there are deliberate programs like EPSCOR (for grants) to prevent such things from happening, but the inequality exists nonetheless. The inequality is sometimes justified, sometimes not.
http://www.educationaldatamining.org/EDM2016/committees.html
The chances of your paper being reviewed exclusively by "top credential" people (whatever that means) is astonishingly low; reviewers come from all sorts of institutions around the world. Even if someone exhibited an "elitist" opinion in discussions, they would be summarily shot down by the majority of people on the committee, who are not from top-ranked institutions. Again, N=small personal anecdotes, but in paper/grant review meetings I've sat on, I've never seen this to be an issue simply because most members are not from top-ranked institutions.
The same is true for NSF grant reviewing in the U.S.. Again, different funding agencies have different models, but the NSF is a peer-based model just like papers.
The hard part about research isn't getting something technically correct. It's about getting something meaningful that advances the field.
The argument for PLOS and Scientific Reports is that in an age where there are no constraints on size of journals, number of papers in a journal, effort required to sift through papers, etc. selecting for impact is less important than before.
Then again, this is not a certain conclusion and there is a lot of room for debate. With extensive searching on Scholar, etc. I Find lesser and lesser need for the stamp of Nature/Science/etc. to certify a paper as high impact.
In the end though I do prefer working commercially, in a field where I can get intrinsic satisfaction from solving real-world problems instead of just having my name at the top of a list or being judged worthy by my peers.
(P.S. Not wanting to be too critical, but this page is almost impossible to read on mobile due to all of the pop-overs coming from different directions.)
The problem is that you're never good enough. Considering research is global competition, it's likely that there will be a bunch of people much better than you, in more prestigious institutions. They will be very critical of your work. Some will dismiss your work publicly in conferences or seminars and so on... not my idea of fun :)
> In the end though I do prefer working commercially, in a field where I can get intrinsic satisfaction from solving real-world problems instead of just having my name at the top of a list or being judged worthy by my peers.
It's possible to do both. Some researchers do try to solve real-world problems :)
I can imagine two situations as a researcher where constant criticism is damaging. (a) If you've built your self-image on being the best, and suddenly you're a small fish in a big pond, you're left with not much. (b) If you want to make a real difference but the culture of negativity/elitism holds you back, you end up frustrated.
But if you are actually making a difference then you can probably withstand any amount of sniping!
But, the professors are definitely too harsh on graduate students. We have to know that graduate students are the ones doing the actual research work most of time. And this probably is more important than what the article suggests.
It is almost a given that you need to be able to dissect any intellectual claim but what I have found often is that academics are less good (in general) about making decisions. I.e. putting forward a proposition for others to critique.
This has created a whole breed of corporate academics who survive and often climb the corporate latters purely by pointing at the wholes in the cheese rather than fixing them or creating a cheese without any whole in it.
not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises . . . [In being the so-called ‘candid friend,’ the pessimist is not really candid.] He is keeping something back—in his own gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help. . . . He is using the ugly knowledge which was allowed him [in order] to strengthen the army, to discourage people from joining it.
- G. K. Chesterton
Besides I noticed many researchers are very dismissive of their colleagues work. I often hear things like "this guy has been working exclusively on abstract interpretation, he should open himself to other ideas", coming from the guy that has been working exclusively on timed automatas.
You can't publish these results, you can't publish shit, you ARE shit, hit the bricks because you are DONE.
I drove here in a 2014 Subaru, you rode here on a bike, THAT'S my name!
EDIT: btw for everyone downvoting me- tech industry is bullshit, funding down, layoffs coming, and you are worried about DOWNVOTING quality comedic content??
You think this site still has a purpose?! LOL!
A-I-D-A. Attention, interest, decision, action. Attention, do I have your attention. Interest, are you interested, I know you are because it's publish or walk. You get published or you hit the bricks!
Decision, have you MADE your DECISION for 10 years of soul-crushing underpaid labor?
And action....
EDIT: also, "what's your name?"
Fuck YOU! THAT'S my name!
These are the new grants. These are the NSF grants. To you, they're gold, and that's why you, don't get them....
because to give them to you is to throw them away...
My old college town had free busses to be fair. But you can get a bike for like, a few weeks worth of not eating