Hacker News Reader

To give an example of what you discuss:

My career has been seriously hampered by quitting a particular project early in my PhD. That project was intractable as far as I'm concerned. My PhD supervisor never treated me the same after quitting that project. I had to get advice from a third-party in my department to get my PhD supervisor to agree to let me graduate. My PhD supervisor refuses to provide me a reference now.

I wasn't able to get a research job immediately after my PhD, and worked as an underpaid bureaucrat (not doing research) for about 2 years before starting my current government contractor research position. My job security is comparable to that of a postdoc and I have worse benefits than most postdocs, but I am paid better.

I recently applied to a job at a national lab, and I could tell that the interviewer was alarmed when I said that my PhD supervisor refuses to provide me a reference.

The important difference between academia/research and non-research industry is that while saying no can jeopardize your current job in both cases, in academia/research saying no is far more likely to jeopardize your future jobs due to the heavy reliance on detailed reference checks.

academia sounds systemically toxic.

publish or perish, lifelong grudges from irreplaceable never-wrong superiors looking to further their own Erdős numbers.

unpaid peer reviews that then become paywalled. rent-seeking from public libraries / community colleges via bundling.

data "science" aimed at producing a predefined conclusion. e.g. corporate research grants. p-hacking, dismissal/omission of inconvenient results that dont fit a narrative.

the adage "people don't leave companies, they leave managers" is simply not a thing that can happen without risking your entire carreer.

's/sounds/is/', all too often. Sociologically, it's very much a medieval feudal system, with all the benefits and horrors that that implies.

From my PhD supervisor's perspective, he holds no grudges against me. He's simply believes that I'm unreliable. (Or something like that. He never clearly told me what his problem with me was.) I freely admit that I've made mistakes. Frankly, quitting my first PhD project was hard on me and I wasn't productive for a while after that. But I did eventually improve and he never noticed! He seemed to ignore anything good I did and focus on the (inevitable) things that didn't work.

In retrospect, it would have been better for me to switch PhD supervisors or quit academia entirely.

The problem is with the structure of academia in my view. Disagreements are inevitable, but don't make someone unemployable because of them.

>He's simply believes that I'm unreliable. (Or something like that. He never clearly told me what his problem with me was.)

Have you asked him?

The last time I spoke to him, I stated something along the lines of "I know that you have some problems with me". My goal was to see what could be done to reconcile with him. He explicitly denied having any problems with me. I was applying for jobs at the time and needed references from him, and after this conversation he stopped replying to those requests. His behavior doesn't make sense if he really doesn't have any problems with me.

> In academia, it’s almost impossible to say “no” to a senior faculty.

That is so strange. In the corporate world it is always easy and straightforward to say no to higher ups. They always accept a no gracefully. /S

In my experience, the best organization are the ones that are willing to get bottom up feedback. The more feedback is accepted and acted upon, the best is the organization. None gets it 100%, most are just half good at it.

> do the right and scientific thing and ruin my future in academia, or do what my peers are doing and make senior faculty like me.

Look for a middle ground. Do not make things worse if you cannot make them better. You will get small wins and wins will become bigger with time. And remember how it felt so you do not repeat the same behavior when you are at the top.

Sometimes, there are reason why things are like they are. Try to change the system instead of change people.

> That is so strange. In the corporate world it is always easy and straightforward to say no to higher ups. They always accept a no gracefully. /S

I know, the grass is always greener on the other side.

> Look for a middle ground. Do not make things worse if you cannot make them better. You will get small wins and wins will become bigger with time. And remember how it felt so you do not repeat the same behavior when you are at the top.

This is what I'm currently trying to do. Unsurprisingly, it takes more effort (time and energy) to solve this problem given constraints (the constraints being: make advisor happy + find a middle ground). It'd be much easier if the constraints were not there, or if I could just drop the second constraint.

Would it be useful to voice your dilemma to your advisor? Something like:

When I hear your request, I am hearing you ask me to fudge the numbers so that this experiment has a more desirable outcome. Is that really what you want me to do? If not can you help me understand how to achieve what you are asking?

Also even if you can’t ask your advisor, maybe there is someone else with authority you could ask

It's definitely easier to say no in a corporate setting. You have way more options than someone in academia. It's really hard to transfer and your higher ups control pretty much everything.

I had a short stint in academia, and it is much easier to say no even in worst company compared to average professor. The problem is not even that the people are bad but in the setting itself, it is that there is no clear data to see the direction in which to put effort in acedemia and in IT jobs at least you could argue with clearer points for why something can't be done in some way, or why developing something would interfere with some other thing.

When two people are arguing with just opinions, the senior person assumes their choice is valid. At least for me, this was frustrating as I felt my opinions are not given any respect.

“It’s as if the goal is not to do science, but to publish and tell an interesting story in your papers.”

Yup, it is the result of the profit motive. I think thanks to the Internet there has become a lot LESS respect for all kinds of views. Every blogger who has comments below can receive pushback. It wasn’t the case when people were simply publishing books with references.

I have taken advantage of this to some extent by interviewing some of the top people in what I am interested in. “Freedom of association”. I didnt even bother posting the videos as public, they are often unlisted.

Tim Berners-Lee

Noam Chomsky

Inventor of Freenet

Grandson of Milton Friedman

The author of Regulation S

Richard Heart from Hex

And so forth. A random assortment of people. Also people building new movements:

Andrew Yang

Tulsi Gabbard

Brock Pierce

Ben Swann

In general, I think people trust institutions less now, including scientists. Look at RFK Jr on Joe Rogan challenging the prevailin establishment on the coronavirus, etc.

As a rule, on the industry you are not pushed out of the entire industry if your superior dislikes you. Instead, you get a career bump; surely with long-term consequences, but your career is not killed right there.

Academia nowadays is a hyper-competitive hellhole.

> In my experience, the best organization are the ones that are willing to get bottom up feedback.

Yes, and those are distributed about equally everywhere. What changes is the impact of the bad ones.

Anyway, a clear sign you are in one of the good places is that people don't keep asking you "yes/no" questions.

This is the unfortunate endgame of any system that depends on political promotion instead of 100% merit based advancement. My experience in the corporate world has shown me that a "skillpoint" in self-promotion is worth several more orders of magnitude than a point in actual skill. Perhaps this reflects actual value to companies as company-scale self-promotion seems to be what boards, seed stage investors, and other shareholders value lately more than long term company benefit to society.

Humans have made incredible advancements in our understanding of the universe, yet we still have a starkly incompetent understanding of how to measure who is fit to hold power.

That's where the free market excels. Companies making inferior decisions tend to go under.

Not entirely the case. Pump and dump schemes where seed stage investors sell to unassuming retail buyers in an IPO might be "companies going under", but if the free market rewards the creators of those schemes in premarket valuation etc, that behavior will proliferate instead of decline as society advances without putting them in check.

Pump and dump schemes are fraud and fraud is not legal in a free market.

Look at the flood of SPACs that have declined 90%+ over the past few years after their IPO. Just because something is illegal, like speeding on a highway, doesn't mean it doesn't happen every day.

Any chance you have to get out of academia, go. Anyone competent should avoid that life.

Society is better off with good people in academia, but an individual is better off out.

Trust me, I've thought about it for long. Unfortunately, the main obstacle is visa issues. I've heard stories about international PhD students who left academia to work in the industry, only to be treated like slaves because the employer knew the person couldn't just switch jobs while on H1B visa (no other company would hire them). Then there's the greencard issues (easier to get approved if you're an academic).

I'd say don't be miserable for a visa. If you are at PhD level, there are many great countries that will be happy to have you.

Having joyfully never dealt with any form of "academia" I am still morbidly curious about what it's all about and these cryptic warnings about it from its victims. Why can't it just be a place where people learn and research and support each other? Actual question, not rhetorical.

Stakes are too low, so people start fighting over the most meaningless things in my experience.

It has to do with how resources are allocated (both human and financial resources). It creates a very unhealthy environment where relationships and who has your back or not has more influence than the actual work you are able to deliver.

> Why can't it just be a place where people learn and research and support each other?

It is - for tenured professors at good schools. But getting to that point is intensely competitive, and the vast majority of people don't make it.

That's a bit too cynic. It's a good rule of thumb, but people shouldn't take it as 100% true.

I personally have left academia, mostly for personal reasons before I could really know for certain whether I would have made it or not, and I know some very competent people who stayed and managed to get good positions without having to compromise who they are.

I think the problems start when you're competent but not competent enough, and your ambitions don't align with how competent you are. That may sound harsh, but I think it's true (with admittedly some variance depending on the exact field you're in).

when will science will instill a dose of sociology or anthropology in its own structure ?