Hacker News Reader

Comment by shas3 | Hacker News Reader

The analogy does not make sense. I know many colleagues who got into academia and were able to find plenty of funding. It wasn't a lucky break that helped them, but hard work and talent. The system is far from perfect, but it is not 'feudal', etc. as the parent comment claims. Systematic hard work can get you results in academia. From what I understand about show-biz, it requires a lot more than just talent and hard work.

Also, your comment ignores the fact that OP is in just one nook of academia. Further, OP is one data point in that one nook of academia. That he is the top institutes doesn't 'weight' his opinion either way, in the grand scheme of things.

View on HN

I got a PhD in computer science, and I landed a research job in industry where I get to do both research and development. So, half production, half academia.

I consider myself extraordinarily lucky. I can point to many different instances of luck that enabled me to be where I am now. Hard work and talent are a given, but among those that work hard and are talented, there's a lot of blind luck that determines who gets the few positions that are available. I continually remind myself not to fall prey to the narrative fallacy, and think that I was somehow "destined" for my current position, and that I got here entirely because of my own work. I was not, and I did not.

I know people who did not land those academic positions, and are either in industry not doing research, or stuck in the post-doc waiting room.

Research in CS (and math) is 'cheap' compared to research in say, chemistry, physics, or biology.

Pencil, paper, and maybe some Amazon EC2 time as opposed to a bunch of lab equipment and other materials.

And research in the humanities is even cheaper and you see how well their doing.

I'm not sure I follow.

I was just making an offhand remark about how R&D gigs in industry for math/cs might be 'easier' to come by because their salary doesn't necessarily compete with lab costs.

The point is that all of this funding scarcity is artificial. its all agame to make you run like a hamster on a wheel. there is no capex needs for liberal arts, only modest opex. but no matter, none of those guys are "funded" either. they all are pitching projects for grants just like the STEM counterparts. Its basically a sociology experiment at this stage.

This is not about the philosophical debate of luck vs. effort. In my opinion, show-biz vs. academia analogy is not valid (Though there are no Jaden Smith's in academia, I won't use that as a counter-example. Doing so would perpetuate this analogy.). The metrics on which actors are judge are fuzzy and subjective at best, and spurious at worst. Academics, OTOH, (excluding China and a few other offenders) are mostly judged justly- whether in grant applications or in job applications or for tenure.

There are indeed Jaden Smiths in academia. I personally know people who did their first degree in (humanities subject) and got a PhD position in (top 5 world school) doing (in-demand science subject) and followed by a postdoc in a great institution based entirely on their father being very important in the subject.

These people got funded graduate spots in the best departments in the world, beating out others who obtained first-class degrees (4.0 for the North Americans) and worked their entire lives towards this dream.

How does this happen? Do you want to be the guy who refused to supervise the daughter of the nth most important person in your field? A man who has given you important references in the past and may do so again? When this relationship could get you even closer to the Will Smith of your field? This is good old fashioned corrupt nepotism for all the good old fashioned reasons.

Now, these people are both genetically and environmentally predisposed to be much better than average at this work. Sometimes it works out well. It is possible that this is a good outcome for science. But is it fair? It is not.

(Written as a working prof who had no academic connection advantages. I acknowledge that being white, male and having English as a first language was not a a bad place to start from).

> Do you want to be the guy who refused to supervise the daughter of the nth most important person in your field?

I never witnessed literal nepotism where family relations were involved. But, this definitely does happen when it comes to academic "family"- a famous advisor's "son" or "daughter" usually has a significant edge.

I know many colleagues who got into academia and were able to find plenty of funding.

Since the crisis struck in 2009 the quality of candidates that are being interviewed at my second-tier state school is just astounding. They are expected to bring funding in, or else they are out, but they will not manage, and considering the quality of graduate students there, they will not be able to be any productive.

Academia is in a state of transition, and it seems that no one knows what the endgame will look like. University presidents throughout the country are betting on growth as the way out of the crisis, more students means more tuition, and more professors means more grants. It doesn't look sustainable, and personally I see no way forward. It seems wise to stay away.

There's a point beyond which "systematic hard work" becomes allocation by sacrifice, which is one of the most stupidly wasteful and destructive things an institution can do. If society is unwilling to adequately fund science - a very unwise decision - then it should at least allocate by random lottery instead of sacrifice and cut down on the waste of life.

As an individual, if you find yourself in an institution that's using allocation by sacrifice, get out. "I will work harder" a la Boxer from Animal Farm makes things worse not better.

I quite like that term, "allocation by sacrifice". Has someone defined it in more detail?

"Systematic hard work can get you results in academia. From what I understand about show-biz, it requires a lot more than just talent and hard work."

Agree (in that what you are saying makes sense. I don't have unfortunately (or maybe I should say fortunately) have personal experience in those particular job markets.)

In any case they appear to be pyramid type systems of success [1](and for that matter athletics are similar to this, right?) Things which many people strive for but few people actually achieve what they set out to achieve (throw startups into this mix as opposed to lifestyle type businesses).

One thing that these pursuits have in common is that money really isn't the primarily motivator in that while becoming a rock star may give you money (or an athlete or a top academic) I always thought that it was more the sense of accomplishment and fame that was much more important. Joe Dimaggio made quite a bit of money in his day but nowhere near what athletes today make but yet many people wanted to play baseball back then.

[1] Perhaps someone could point out the right phrase for this concept. I'm looking for the word that describes professions where people are generally driven to work hard believing they will be the ones that become famous or well known or "the best".

It's called the tournament model. Big law firms are the classic example.

A related theory is that technology and globalization has, and will, make more and more industries 'winner take all'.

I wonder if there are high-profile areas that don't follow that model currently? Given that we're on HN, startups are another example that comes to mind, with the entire VC industry based around trying to hit those rare 100x (or 1000x) exits, and plenty of people happily willing to work towards the small odds of being the one.

Perhaps the free software movement and wisdom of the crowds phenomena such as wikipedia are a counterpoint? While both have big players with more influence, it's not a zero sum game as there is room for people to work on long tail stuff.

Doctors are a counterexample. While there are certainly richer and more prestigious specialties than others, once you hit medical school there's not much attrition. Then once you make MD even the lower paid specialties are pretty well paid, and have great job security. It's not like BigLaw where getting in the door is only the first step and there's a long way to fall.

any inelastic demand markets will not follow that model. tournament-systems rely on incredible elasticity of demand so any small change will cause ripple of larger magnitude (i.e. if a new VC joined in the supply of VCs, it will cause 1000x more startups to be funded in order of magnitude)

Equity/stock traders is one of them because of legislation that fixes the commission price per lot (so the banks cannot really use information asymmetry as an advantage) Not all banking is as profitable as people think it is

>I know many colleagues who got into academia and were able to find plenty of funding.

If I parse correctly that you're in academia, you should really make more effort to understand potential sources of bias.

They got into academia because they were able to find plenty of funding. This does not imply that people who offer hard work and talent will typically find funding.

You are reading too much into my remark. I have seen cases where senior faculty members (within or without the department) with experience in finding funding have mentored junior ones and helped them with their peer networks. The bottom-line when it comes to academia and funding is this: You have to play the game or opt out of it. The funding system is far from perfect, but you can work it. In some ways, it is similar to the importance of 'soft skills' in an industry setting. Your best work will not always get you promoted because there are several other considerations that matter to your bosses. Some times, the skills required to get promoted (especially for advanced stages of promotion) are different from those required to be innovative/build a great product/service.

I am in electrical engineering. DoD is by far the largest source of funds. Admittedly, hunting for research funds involves a different set of skills than 'doing great research'. But these skills are learn-able and can go a long way in helping one's career.

> Systematic hard work can get you results in academia.

This is not necessarily true. At least in life sciences, there is a big element of pure, dumb luck. Biological systems are inherently noisy, and no matter how diligent we try to be about our processes and protocols, there is always luck.

I spent nearly two years of my life performing a single protocol (an endocytic receptor internallization assay) and the line between "good results" and "wasted a week" was incredibly thin. Some things just require luck to work out, no matter how careful you are.

I left academic biology because I didn't want luck playing into my career. In academic biology you must be incredibly smart, incredibly dedicated, willing to work long hours with little pay, AND be incredibly lucky.

I looked around at the post-docs in my department (at MIT, mind you) and saw brilliant people who would never produce a top-tier article, who had spent so long in their post-doc that they had no chance of ever becoming a professor. They would probably wash out to some industry job at Merck testing cholesterol drugs after wasting 10 years of their life pursuing some fictitious dream.

Truth be told, I wasn't as brilliant as most of the people around me, so I made a judgment call and left. It was the right decision, I'm happier than ever (and actually make money too).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com