Hacker News Reader

Comment by tensor | Hacker News Reader

Here we go again. HN with the anti-academic stance. Almost every week now, we get something like this.

Why is everyone here so insecure that they feel the need to beat up on those who choose knowledge instead of money? You don't go into a PhD to get rich. You do it to learn. If you want to learn, do science on your own. Let's see some detailed reports, complete with hypothesis, methods, data, and conclusions.

Nothing is stopping you. As for these articles, they are not science. There are infinitely more of these than actual science by the HN crowd. That is because zero startup science articles come through here. The occasional industry science piece comes up, but even most of those are collaborations with academia.

If you are truly so passionate about science, prove it with actions.

View on HN

IMHO Academia is the anti-startup. It's in direct competition with angel-investors. Let's see, the path of academia is:

1) Finish college

2) Do PhD

3) Get funding from gov. to do startup or academic project.

Angel investor path is:

1) Drop from college

2) Get funding from investor.

Investors don't want 30 year old PhDs. They want 20 year old dropouts that will work 22 hs per day. It makes economic sense.

They also don't want people who prefers to learn & discover something than build & sell something.

False dichotomy. A lot of learning and discovering involves building.

Yes, and none of this has anything to do with science, which is the point of a PhD. It is not a path to a startup. Startups and businesses are completely irrelevant to academia, as they should be.

A PhD is about science and learning. If you don't do science, or cannot do science, then your opinion about the academic system is irrelevant.

Having gone through it myself I will be the first to tell you of it's problems. But to compare it to the non-science world is a complete joke. Want to make a difference to science? Demonstrate an alternative implementation.

Beyond that, if you went into it for the money, it's your own mistake that you need to take responsibility for. Don't try to paint yourself as the victim. You were never promised riches, only knowledge in a subject of your own choosing.

>Startups and businesses are completely irrelevant to academia

Yes but they compete for the same kind of people: Talented, persistent and technical-minded persons willing to sacrifice a huge part of their lifes for their careers.

Should be goal of angel investors to "steal" those human resources from academia. Ergo, anti-academia bias in HN.

I'm sorry, but I've seen too many Startups hire friends--not "Talented, persistent and technical-minded persons willing to sacrifice a huge part of their lifes for their careers."

I wish Startups, Businesses, and Government would hire the best and the brightest, but nepotism and networking seem to be more important factor. So many guys who got rich in the Startup world--owe a lot to luck. They are usually in deep denial, until the company is sold, or goes under. I had a friend who got lucky with a gaming company. He went from a humble guy to someone I just couldn't listen to. What bothered me was he never let me in on the "game" early on. I guess he wasn't much of a friend? And that's why I never kept in touch. (This is not geared to you, but your post got me thing about this industry.)

Isn't that exactly his point? HN is focused on startups, and will have an interest in things that benefit startups, like attracting smart people into business instead of pursuing a PhD. If HN was focused on academia, we'd probably see more articles about why starting a business is a bad idea, and why getting your PhD is a great idea.

> If HN was focused on academia, we'd probably see more articles about why starting a business is a bad idea, and why getting your PhD is a great idea.

You clearly don't read many academic blogs, or the Chronicle of Higher Education.

> then your opinion about the academic system is irrelevant.

> But to compare it to the non-science world is a complete joke.

Huh? I'm having trouble understanding why you think that the points you are making and the points aortega is making are incompatible. aortega is more or less agreeing with your original point and shows how the startup scene and academia could be seen to be competing for similar, I don't know, type of persons from the similar talent pools. One is public funded, one is private funded. Are you implying that academia is the only place that science is pushed forward? You seem to be and of course that is untrue.

And besides, to say that a PhD is about science is vague. Surely you mean that a PhD follows the scientific method and uses scientific methodology - its problem domain may not be in the sciences which is what you seem to be implying.

> Investors don't want 30 year old PhDs. They want 20 year old dropouts that will work 22 hs per day. It makes economic sense.

Nonsense.

Let's look at Warp Drive Bio. They launched with $125MM in funding with three founders who are professors in their 50's[1]. All three of those founders would put most 20 year old start up founders to shame with the amount they work and how much they love what they are doing.

Clinkle's seed funding of $25MM is chump change next to these guys.

[1] http://www.warpdrivebio.com/news/Warp%20Drive%20Launch%20PR%...

You know academy is not infallible and scientists are no saints. And boy, are scientists no saints. Passionate about science, please.

Go to Science Career forum (hosted by Science magazine) and see how urgent the need is to cull Ph.D. crowd.

Why is everyone here so insecure that they feel the need to beat up on those who choose knowledge instead of money?

Why does it have to be insecurity? I think it's a matter of competing ideology, and that's okay.

agreed. I am one of these unemployed PhDs, and I think people who "choose knowledge" are stupid. There's a massive dunning-kruger thing going on in american academia. Our only saving grace is that it's worse in europe and east asian science is rife with fraud.

Done there, been that. Only I can no longer afford the impoverished life of the struggling adjunct or post-doc, and that's without a mortgage or a family to support.

I'd agree with your premise twenty years ago, but at today's tuition--a healthy debate is warranted.

In hard sciences it's typical that your tuition will be completely covered and that you'll additionally be paid a livable wage. With that knowledge, do you agree with his premise now?

Yeah, you get paid a "livable" stipend that comes to less than minimum wage when you factor in the hours worked.

I've never understood why USA PhD students appear to be paid so badly. My stipend was 36k USD (tax free, so compared favourably with the salaries of my friends who went into industry). I worked pretty much 9-5 with the occasional late nights, and got paid an additional $23/hr for work not related to my PhD (teaching, work on other research projects).

Interestingly if I'd gone into industry I'd have been earning much less than my equivalent in the USA.

The basic answer seems to be: in Europe, you're in school until you finish your MSc, but once you start the PhD you're basically just considered a junior-ranked research professional and paid accordingly, even if your de jure status is "student". In much of the rest of the world, including but not limited to the Anglosphere, the BSc is the terminal degree, a MSc is a consolation prize for failing your PhD, and a person doing a PhD is considered very definitely a student, with the loss of pay, permanence and status that entails.

maybe many here see the edu-scam for what it is

(got 3 degrees myself, including a doctoral level degree, but wish I had joined my father in the plumbers union)..

Well, you can still be a plumber ...

Here we go again, the idealistic high school student who hasn't had to pay bills in their life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com