“Indirect costs” were accepted on the theory that this would be used to create job security for professors who did useful work but were not able to secure direct funding.
Spoiler alert: That job security doesn’t exist anymore. A professor who isn’t winning grants, even if tenured, is functionally dead. Research doesn’t matter except as PR and teaching definitely doesn’t matter; the ability to raise grants is the singular determinant of an academic’s career.
Consequently, most academics despise university overhead because it reduces the number of grants to go around and they get nothing for it.
That does not, of course, mean they support Trump or Musk. Most do not.
> “Indirect costs” were accepted on the theory that this would be used to create job security for professors who did useful work but were not able to secure direct funding.
This is an argument that I have literally never heard, despite being in academia a long time.
To be truthful, though, that’s only like 0.01 percent of the “academia was stolen from us and being a professor (if you ever get there at all) is worse” problem.
This wasn't just a "academia" thing, though. All business executives (even low level ones) had secretaries in the 1980s and earlier too. Typing wasn't something most people could do and it was seen as a waste of time for them to learn. So people dictated letters to secretaries who typed them. After the popularity of personal computers, it just became part of everyone's job to type their correspondence themselves and secretaries (greatly reduced in number and rebranded as "assistants" who deal more with planning meetings and things) became limited only to upper management.
Absolutely everything is tracked as a work item with estimates. Anything you think should be done needs to be justified and tracked the same way.
My grandpa once said something that seemed ridiculous but makes a lot of sense: that every workplace should have a “heavy” who steals a new worker’s lunch on the first day, just to see if he asserts himself. Why? Not to haze or bully but to filter out the non-fighters so that when management wants to impose quotas or tracking, they remember that they’d be enforcing this on a whole team of fighters… and suddenly they realize that squeezing the workers isn’t worth it.
The reason 1950s workplaces were more humane is that any boss who tried to impose this shit on workers would have first been laughed at, and then if he tried to actually enforce it by firing people, it would’ve been a 6:00 in the parking lot kinda thing.
Many of the workers in the 1950s were combat veterans who had lived through some shit and weren't as easy to push around. Contrast that to today when a lot of people tend to panic over minor hazards like a respiratory virus with a >99% survival rate. That cowardice puzzled me until I realized that a lot of younger people have led such sheltered lives that they have never experienced any real hardship or serious physical danger so they lack the mental resilience to cope with it. They just want to be coddled and aren't willing to fight for anything.
That generation had it more together as citizens, and they held on to power for a long time. Postwar all of the institutions in the US grew quickly, and the WW2 generation moved up quickly as a result. The boomer types sat in the shadows and learned how to be toxic turds, and inflicted that on everyone.
That's half of it. The other half is, WWII turned the United States from a relative backwater to a military and industrial superpower. So the war also taught lessons on a societal level about organization and cooperation, and the postwar economic boom provided the means to get great things done.
> The other half is, WWII turned the United States from a relative backwater to a military and industrial superpower.
The US was the leading industrial power from around 1880 or 1890, and it became the leading military power in the 1910s (by dint of entering WWI so late that it didn't exhaust its manpower fighting it). It may have been a cultural backwater as late as WWI, but its economic status would have been fairly undisputed. And by WWII, the only question anyone would have seriously asked is if the US or the UK held the throne as greatest of the great powers.
I think if you look at how most people lived, worked, travelled, communicated, educated, etc before WW2 - there was a huge improvement after the war that resulted in lots of development and economic opportunities for the average person.
>The boomer types sat in the shadows and learned how to be toxic turds, and inflicted that on everyone.
The boomer types are now in their 70s and even 80s and mostly retired (or dead). It's the generations after them that run many of the anal-retentive, bureaucratically obsessive compulsive managerial postings today, and among those are a good number of gen z turds who are at least as toxic, while being smugly self-righteous about their habits. We'll be blaming boomers for decades after they're dead, for things long since out of their hands.
One of the consequences of WWII was that everyone's plans, ideas, and work cultures were turned into direct results very quickly, in the real world. Sometimes fatally.
The people who lived through that had their feet on the ground.
Aside from its many other flaws, post-70s neoliberalism added a bizarre abstraction layer of economic delusion over everything. This suppressed the core truths of physical reality, common sense, and the basic social requirement of sane reciprocal relationships, and did its best to make consequences as indirect and deniable as possible.
Things that really, really matter - like ecological, political, and social stability - were devalued in everyday experience and replaced with economic abstractions that are more mystical than practical.
It's very culty, and the disconnect between how things should be and how they really are is getting more and more obvious to everyone.
"Aside from its many other flaws, post-70s neoliberalism added a bizarre abstraction layer of economic delusion over everything. This suppressed the core truths of physical reality, common sense, and the basic social requirement of sane reciprocal relationships, and did its best to make consequences as indirect and deniable as possible."
I think I need to print that out and put on the wall. However, did you live through it youself? I think it it hard to evaluate stuff like this with 2nd hand experience only.
> The reason 1950s workplaces were more humane is that any boss who tried to impose this shit on workers would have first been laughed at, and then if he tried to actually enforce it by firing people, it would’ve been a 6:00 in the parking lot kinda thing.
That era also had militant labor organization and real socialist and communist parties in the US. Anticommunism killed all that and brought us to the current state of affairs where employers that respect their employees even a little bit are unicorns.
High demand for labor can lead to better conditions, but demand for labor isn't static and without real organization and solidarity it's nearly impossible for workers to punish companies that move jobs to low-cost locales. Economic policy is also controlled by the employer class, which means policies that encourage unemployment and inflation are common.
I was in San Francisco that week. Ecological issues aside, it was the last time San Francisco felt different in a good way rather than a bad one. The “negative energy” is now too much for me and, when I travel to the Bay Area, I pretty much just stay on-track. I wonder if people who lived in San Francisco from 1965-2005 expected it to last forever.
I think this is bigger than just SF. After the great recession the generally positive atmosphere in the western world never really recovered. Any time it even got close to recovering some new horrible event happened.
Positivity has become politically suspect. It's doubly sad to be unhappy about how things are going in the world generally and also to be nervous about enjoying when something goes right. It's sad that making a positive comment about the weather is something I only do with close friends now, and not even all of them. There are people I've known for years, who know what my politics are, who know who I give money to, yet still, if I say something nice about the weather, they have to say "too bad climate isn't weather" or "yeah, but you know in a few months it's going to be terrible, because global warming is real." And none of this drives political engagement or moves anybody's mind in the slightest; it's just a social fashion that arose spontaneously, for no purpose, and which we will enforce zealously until one day it doesn't seem important anymore.
Yep, exactly. God forbid you express any positivity about the weather, the place you live, anything connected to any government/company/nonprofit, any public or historical figure, et cetera. I am lucky to have a large social network where I mostly don't have to watch my words, but this is spreading like a virus through society.
There are a few causes here. One is that everything - absolutely everything - is severely problematic. Another is that people now scrutinize the minor differences among their friends and try to evangelize them. When everything is a life or death issue, you really should fight for the right thing. And the problem is that many things really are life or death matters. People really are dying in horrific ways in the Middle East, and plastics really are filling our oceans, and politicians do often embolden people to kill members of the out-group. The modern internet and social media gives us the most extreme and attention-grabbing examples of any of that, neatly cut and cropped into heartwrenching short-format video. MLK and a fuzzy blanket and a kitten are all positive things, but in an instant the modern internet can fill you in on countless reasons that they are problematic. I mean come on, most fuzzy blankets shed microplastics like mad, cats devastate our ecosystems and MLK has countless words written about his wrongs [1]. If you're positive about fuzzy blankets, kittens or MLK then you're probably naïve at best and a member of the wrong group at worst.
I think the solution is twofold: one, strongly limit the type and amount of internet use, and two, try to be positive. To be positive in these modern times is a revolutionary act. Positivity and happiness are contagious.
[1] https://archive.ph/oKKcC - The New Yorker: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Perilous Power of Respectability. I linked this article because, while it is generally positive on MLK, it gives a good rundown of the various issues people have with him.
As the world grows more interconnected, the proliferation of news about horrible events happening spreads faster, and even if you personally ignore the news, other people don’t, and this colors the overall mood of society.
There is horror everywhere, and always will be until the end of our days.
Suppose you lived in a village where there was no outside news. You'd learn of about two murders and a dozen deadly accidents in your lifetime. Imagine how safer you'd feel compared to a villager who's getting outside news beamed to her face every hour of the day.
I'm not advocating isolation, but our primitive minds are not able to really understand that what is projected in front of us is not the same as what happens in front of us. I don't know how anyone could solve that.
And how can you support funding this beautiful park proposal when there are children starving in ${country}??
I can’t remember where I heard this, but it was someone questioning joy and frivolity in a time of war. And the answer back was that people need to remember what they are fighting for otherwise what’s the point?
If you don’t allow yourself joy until the problems are gone, there will never be joy and the problems will multiply for lack of it.
I was thinking the same thing. It's surprising how many people don't get this, arguing that poverty, wars or some other pressing matter must be solved first before we can go to space or spend money on non essential activities.
It may seem counterintuitive, but that way of thinking doesn't actually solve problems, it only perpetuates them.
While your point has value, there's also value in the perspective that people should take more responsibility for the damage inflicted on others under their watch. For example, it is my perspective that too many people stood by idly while the U.S. engaged in war for the 90's/00's/10's/20's. Too many people said "I want to go make money on wall street/in law/in consulting" instead of either changing their political system or serving it. There is a fair argument that war, particularly war conducted by your own country, is an exceptional thing and requires re-prioritizing duties over desires. The only other exception I can think of that isn't debateable is genocide.
At least "how can you support funding this beautiful park proposal when there are children starving in ..." is more than a century old at this point (there are Soviet books from 1920s lampooning this sentiment).
Would thousands of colored balls careening down streets bouncing off objects and each other and damaging things in their path be an okay metaphor for this?
I mean, you mean after the 2003-2004 Iraq war, 9/11 in 2001, the stolen election of 2000 & the crash of 2000, the Kosovo war in 1999? There’s always a lot of reasons why the atmosphere can be negative every year.
Yeah I'm not sure what they meant by 2008... After 9/11, things werent optimistic.
Coming up to YEAR 2000, the future felt here. I remember watching the TV shows in preparation for YEAR 2000. Then the future never really happened like predicted. We didn't wear silver suits in 2001.
I do mean after those things. Globally nobody cares about most of these after the initial shock. There were definitely long periods of good in between those events.
The San Francisco I experience is full of positive energy. Sure, maybe if you're visiting and stay in Union Square, that's not what you see. But if you live in the residential neighborhoods and work somewhere nice (such as in the Presidio), there isn't another city in the world I would rather be.
It seems to me like working from home has transformed the residential neighborhoods. I recently visited Inner Sunset as was astonished at how many people were out and about.
When I visited in the 90's I remember conversations mentioning seeing the signs and trying to delay the inevitable end. Whether someone sees that as dooming or prescient is probably a matter of if they moved in before or after 2005.
What city regions have better energy, are good economically, and have natural beauty (ocean, mountain, plants)?
It is easy to find faults with the SF bay area (politics, costs, and derivative issues), but is somewhere actually better?
EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes. It was an honest question, and I badly wanted to be informed, having given the issue in-depth consideration over the years. I wasn't being snarky.
Yeah, it's good economically in the sense that it's still near top of market, due to having a large-ish existing economy (even if aspects of said economy seem fundamentally whack).
As in: if you want something at decent quality you can pretty much get it pretty easily with a bunch of options (assuming you can afford it).
Caveat - not necessarily the top of everything for all markets is available, but overall stuff is still around -- even as some things are disappearing from the area.
In contrast, other places are just poor, and you "cannot" find as large a variety of lots of goods and services, I imagine. But I could be wrong -- I'll check my assumptions. Thanks.
Are services really easily available in SF? I was shocked when we went to restaurant at evening without a reservation. Server give one hour waiting time for a table! At normal city you just drop into nearest good restaurant, and if they are full (very unlikely) you go to next.
How easy is to get a dentist or masseuse, with a few hour notice?!
> In contrast, other places are just poor, and you "cannot" find as large a variety of lots of goods and services
I think you need reality check on "poor". The place with the widest selection of services and products (for example types of meat in supermarket, or hand made tailored clothes) is Bangkok in Thailand. Places like SF just do not have enough people to provide all those services.
IDK about in the city itself, but in the surrounding metro area I would say yes.
> At normal city you just drop into nearest good restaurant, and if they are full (very unlikely) you go to next.
Right, I was biased toward considering the surrounding cities in the SF metro. I think popping into next open restaurant with seating applies to the healthy downtowns in the area metro area. But the city itself, I wouldn't know.
> a dentist...with a few hour notice
I don't think that kind of dental scheduling is typically found/done _anywhere_ in the US AFAIK.
> meat in supermarket, or hand made tailored clothes) is Bangkok in Thailand
It used to be found in sf, and I've still found it in slc
Back in 2012 I had a raspberry seed work it's way down into my gums and not come out. Made an appointment at Townsend dental and saw him 3 hours later.
A few weeks ago I had a filling fall out. Called up a local dentist here and got it fixed 90 minutes later
Yeah if you’re in a culture where everyone gets a reservation for a fancy restaurant (just like in Paris), you’ll need a reservation, that’s just how the market works.
> How easy is to get a dentist or masseuse, with a few hour notice?!
I mean, everyone who lives here is already affiliated with a dental office and they’ll take you in same day for a real emergency. You can get a Thai massage in two hours very easily too.
The quality of medical care is also stupidly high compared to almost anywhere outside the US. Sure your insurance will pay $$$ for it but who cares?
Because you meet tons of talented engineers whenever you go for lunch, and they just need to cross the street and walk in to ask for a job.
Because you're around a ton of people who are interested in the same thing as you are. Caveat: If you're not interested in the things SF engineers are interested in, that means you're surrounded by masses of incredibly boring - to you - folks :)
Because that introduction you need to make things pop is super-easy compared to other places.
Doesn't mean you _have_ to start in SF, but for certain classes of ventures, it's the place that makes it the easiest.
Subculture wise, SF is barely represented in computer graphics or high performance optimization circles, like gamedev or demoscene, arguably a class of field that produces top quality software engineers.
Yes. I'm not implying only SF produces great engineers. I'm saying that for a specific large set of problems, SF is swimming in great engineers for those problems.
For other problems, elsewhere may well be better. Gamedev, I'd say SoCal, NC, TX are all better places.(Though the studios have done a "great" job choking off the indie scene). If you talk high performance non-gfx, I'd go with NYC, HFT is pretty interesting.
But that's the whole point. Pick a place that has people who care about the thing you want to do. Because top engineers are almost always engineers who deeply care about the field they're in.
Any remote job listing gets thousands of applications, with dozens good candidates. I really doubt I could get decent engineer for $80k a year in SF.
> Caveat: If you're not interested ... incredibly boring
Everyone in SF has basically the same correct opinion.
And not just booring, but hostile. People in SF are really not that tolerant. Try to say that Dubai is more diverse, because it has many cultures, religions, people from Africa, India, Philippines... Or someone is not XYZ, but mixed race (whiter than me) and you will understand.
> I really doubt I could get decent engineer for $80k a year in SF.
If you did, they'd be a non-exempt employee, so you'd need to track and pay out overtime. A quick look puts the minimum non-exempt salary for jobs in California at ~$69,000.
Also, honestly? I expect you'd be hard-pressed to find a decent programmer for $80k/year in ANY major metro area in the US... post 2020, housing prices went NUTS across the country and aren't getting any less nuts.
(One of the big reasons I haven't moved out of San Francisco is that my ~50% less than "market rate" rent is not THAT much more than current rents in most other US cities. (Plus, most other US cities don't even pretend to have any sort of useful public transportation.))
I'd say Lisbon, Portugal is probably the closest (including Weather, which places like Seattle are lacking), especially because you didn't mention pre-existing tech industry which is probably SF's main differential versus everywhere else. It even has a big red bridge?
P.S: I'm sorry Lisboetas..you are already getting swamped by Digi Nomads, but it's true.
I visited lisbon last year and was kind of shocked how similar to SF it was, weather, hills, general feel - that it has its own golden gate bridge really just sealed it.
Really depends on what you mean by all those. Some would say Sandy Eggo has the beauty, others would contest that Seattle has the economy and mountains.
The people left there are those who like what it has become or are trapped in someway; others have moved.
Vancouver, IMO, is a far better developed city than Seattle. Vastly better transit, denser, more walkable neighbourhoods, and just overall very thoughtfully developed.
It’s just an enormous shame it’s become grossly unaffordable— on an income adjusted basis, it’s more expensive than the Bay Area. That, and the weather, although the summers are perfect IMO.
You’re conveniently leaving out how pretentious and insufferable many Seattleites are…
It has been far and wide the least welcoming, interesting, and lackluster food city I’ve ever lived in.
Also, the coffee scene there is worse than SF, Chicago, LA..rare stop for bands and musicians touring, and unpleasant transit.
The only people I know who are genuinely happy there are people who moved from Florida, and wealthy white families with young children who moved there (from California) “because taxes and better education”.
Don’t even get me started on the lack of diversity and casual racism.
SF is far from perfect, but Seattle isn’t even in the conversation for places I’d ever recommend someone leaving SF to shortlist.
Sorry you're not having a good time here; that hasn't been my experience of the city at all. There was a moment back in the late '90s when I could have moved to either Seattle or S.F., and Seattle happened to snag me first; I still enjoy visiting SF from time to time, but I've never had the slightest regret about settling here instead.
For tradition's sake, I feel obligated to give you the classic Seattleite response to such complaints: "whatever, man; if there's somewhere you like better, feel free to go there."
Seattle is another tier above. SF people I find far more interesting and smart vs. the smartest people I met/knew/know in Seattle. Seattle is like a pissing contest for nerd snipers. At least in SF we drink our own pee (at Folsom of course)
It really is surrounded by amazing natural beauty. However, everything to do with humans has slowly morphed into an unfixable nightmare and it's heartbreaking. I think it's time to throw in the towel, evacuate everyone from the city and let it return to nature as a wildlife preserve.
There’s a built-in design paradox. How does a judge assess an expert in a field where he is not one? There’s probably some improvement that comes from experience but it’s not perfect.
Qualifications=academics usually & career experience. No way to know if they actually learned something and aren’t a fraud. Even corporations that do thousands of interviews get duped
- perhaps the judge make less experts interviews than the corporations, leading to less experience in that but also takes each of them more seriously.
- one way to remove/add some credit to someone claim is to ask some of their peers opinion and see if there’s a strong majority.
- the judge personal expertise may help him forge a precise opinion but that wouldn’t clear him of making a mistake.
For important matters it’s always a good idea to ask for peers reviews. Academics knows that too.
Opposing lawyers have an incentive to help the judge. Of course the lawyers will lie, but they still will point out important details for the judge to look at.
Generally, no. There’s a risk of unfair competition for work (they can delegate the stuff they don’t want because they have political power) and their code often becomes “untouchable” because few will call it out if the code is bad.
A hobby project to keep current isn’t a bad idea, though.
That's a very good indicator of a bloated institution. People have to compete for work instead of pushing it away or avoiding it because they already have their hands full.
But I don't believe there is a general rule that applies here.
Most great managers I had were deeply technical and involved in the nitty gritty of the projects, including coding the very spiky aspects of a project.
Most mediocre managers I had were very focused on relationship building. The kind of manager that would need a hobby project to keep current, instead of being the most knowledgeable person in the room.
> I think that there is a big difference between being in the code and writing code. All managers should be in the code, but not all managers should be writing code.
I think it's not possible to be in the code without writing code. People can pay lip service to being in the code as the author indicates, but as we all know there is no substitute for actually sitting down and writing the code yourself in terms of understanding the actual pains and struggles.
And my anecdotal experience says that if you aren't writing at least some of the code, more often than not the disconnect between the manager and what the team is doing grows and grows.
IMO if an EM is taking the fun stuff, or the high-profile promo packet stuff, that's a symptom of a lot of very bad things. My boss is an upper-level EM and has at least a few PRs in a couple projects every sprint, and it's almost entirely boring-but-blocking stuff, or stuff that nobody wants to figure out, or stuff that is important but not sexy and not likely to get anyone noticed. He's not writing new features or writing UIs that are getting put in pitch decks or anything.
If I were an IC and my boss was picking the sexy work I would leave. If I was a director and one of my EMs was picking the sexy work I would fire them.
As an engineering manager, I actually pick up the stuff other people don’t like to do or stuff I notice that is hanging out there. My goal is to move the team forward.
I’ve also done POCs of work that has been met with resistance that I didn’t feel was justified in order to actually give it a fair shake. That is my coding fun.
> I’ve also done POCs of work that has been met with resistance that I didn’t feel was justified in order to actually give it a fair shake. That is my coding fun.
I've had managers do this to me. What an awful experience. Because they're the manager you can't push back against the awful design decisions they made. They feel it's almost done so don't understand that it takes a lot of time to deal with all the side effects they didn't consider.
A POC should just be a happy path to prove a concept. I had a CTO who would routinely throw together code just to prove out an integration or another concept with hard coded values everywhere and drop the code in Dropbox for me to lead the effort of making it production ready as the architect. He would go back and forth with the vendor until things worked.
This helped me out by leaps and bounds. I was usually swamped with other research. I would then make it ready for production or lead the team to and take care of the edge cases, integration with our config system, logging and alerting, etc.
There is a huge difference between a POC and an MVP. An MVP should be properly designed and scaffolding that you can build on, a POC doesn’t take those things into account.
I hope I don’t come across that was and do have some evidence (not to be laid out here) supporting that I don’t.
I think I’ve created a team and structure where the developers I manage are comfortable telling me I’m wrong or what I didn’t consider. It happens weekly. We value honest feedback highly. We do it with respect, but we do it.
We just have some developers on the team that are resistant to ideas that don’t follow a pattern until they see it. And sometimes my communication around the initial idea is poor and the best way I can communicate is an implementation.
As with virtually everything in this thread, it matters how you do it. Sounds like you did it well.
I’ll add one other great edge in building a quick POC yourself. Sometimes your idea actually _is_ bad, and trying to articulate it in code helps you see it.
While that is possible, I think a good manager recognizes these pitfalls. My philosophy is "everyone has to scrub toilets once in awhile - that includes me". You'd have to ask my direct reports but, I'd like to say I lean more toward taking the "grunt tasks" that I don't think are super helpful for my folks' career growth.
Then again, I've been called a bad manager on Hacker News so...
Obviously being a good manager is first and foremost, but
I’ve always had more respect for managers that I know can (even if they never do) do my job as well as bring a manager. Early in my career at a startup I had a manager that was both and excellent manager and right there in the trenches with you when issues arose or business deadlines were approaching. The amount of respect I still have for that individual is immeasurable and I’d go work for them again in a heartbeat if they asked.
And OTOH, nothing worse than a manager that don't know what he wants nor how to do it, but he "will know when it is right", and keep you redoing stuff.
I’m an aging (60s) academic and I’ve found that the old assumption of our world offering a “life of ideas” that any talented person would want is no longer true. If you’re coming in now or came in in the past 30 years, it’s liters just a job. Not necessarily a bad job, but certainly not a calling.
The tenure system is necessary for it to function, because wages are so low relative to skill level and the job market is so unreliable, but it also makes things worse because the old hands mostly don’t fight evil changes (and there have been tons of evil changes recently) of only the young will be affected.
Of course, the current state of the US government and the rising anti intellectualism don’t help.
Yeah it seems to me like academia is dead in basically every sense. Not just internally as you describe but also in the culture. People just don’t value learning anymore, the romantic image is fading. And now there’s no distinction being academia and industry in the sense that even vocations need a degree now, most people have an experience of university that is far removed from traditional academia, again giving it a pure economic focus. We’ll see what happens but I do feel like the last 20 years has seen a steep decline in the cultural value of academia, and as you point out, a strong professionalising of academia
Unlikely, given the 10/50 to 1 demand/supply ratio. The very top people are workaholics and true believers, so it is unlikely that the absence of the institution of tenure would affect their choices.
For mid-quality people, there is an overabundance of researchers who would get that job, tenure or no-tenure, for a piece of chocolate.
I agree, but with one amendment: most tenure-track roles in the US will have 50 to 200 applicants for a single position. Over the last few decades, tenure lines have decreased while PhD admissions have not. Adjuncts do so much of the teaching at all kinds of institutions these days.
It is true, but I was referring to suitable candidates. I had what I believe was a very good CV (prestigious fellowships, a meaty publication list in some top 10% disciplinary journals), and I had exactly zero invitations to interview over more than 5 years of applying to tt jobs.
Yes but if you remove the "last long enough and you'll have a job for life and your kids get college degrees for free" carrot how many of those people who want the job now no longer will?
Plenty. Anybody who has been in academia sees the institution as cultish. Nobody wants a tenure track job because their kids will go to college for free and give up other work opportunities for that carrot.
The last problem academia will have is not enough people applying to tenure track jobs.
> Anybody who has been in academia sees the institution as cultish.
Anybody? I'm sure this is not the case.
> Nobody wants a tenure track job because their kids will go to college for free and give up other work opportunities for that carrot.
You conveniently left out the job for life part which is a huge part of why most professors want a TT job. There are other bonuses of course but "can't be fired" is a pretty sweet gig if you can get it. Hence the couple hundred applications for every open TT role.
> The last problem academia will have is not enough people applying to tenure track jobs.
Well we're talking about what would happen if there was no tenure track so I guess this is pedantically true. But I'm not saying we'll suddenly have open professorial roles with no applicants, I'm saying maybe without tenure as a carrot we'll go from 200 applicants for each job to something more reasonable like 30-50.
Academia is cultish (strict hierarchy, a sense of calling for the profession, long hours and minimal pay for "juniors", non-academic careers, even when well compensated, considered inferior, etc.).
I spent ~15 years in academia between PhD, post-docs, and prestigious fellowships. I have never heard anybody saying they wanted a tenure-track job because of the institution of tenure (thousands of post-docs have objectively no chance of landing a tenure-track job, and they are not even looking outside of the ivory tower) or because after getting the job, they cannot be fired. That's a huge misrepresentation of the motives of the vast majority of academics.
"I'm saying maybe without tenure as a carrot we'll go from 200 applicants for each job to something more reasonable like 30-50." - I don't know the answer, but I would bet one would see 190 applicants instead of 200.
You conveniently left out the job for life part which is a huge part of why most professors want a TT job.
Also, age makes you better at doing jobs but worse at getting them. You do not want to be on the open labor market after 50, especially if you’re specialized and probably (possibly undiagnosed) neurodivergent.
> You do not want to be on the open labor market after 50
This might be true in something like software development (I don't strictly think it is but I'm at least open to the argument) but it's definitely not true in academia.
People want old professors. If anyone I'd expect it to be easier for a 50, 55, 60 year old professor to get a TT role than a 29 year old with a wet ink PhD.
How is this not true? Apart from specific disciplines with a permeable barrier between university and industry (for example, computer science, finance), the median age at which a tenured position is obtained should be between 30 and 35 years old (and I believe the variance of the distribution of ages to be small). It is very rare to get a tenured position at 40, and the chances are much slimmer for older people.
I think that most people who haven't spent time doing a PhD, doing post-docs, etc. have very misguided ideas about how the academic world works, and their notion of
"professorship" comes mainly from movies.
Especially at R1 universities, researchers are hired primarily (90%+) for their research; teaching is very secondary. The "genius discovery" is the improbable outcome of their research; the most likely outcome is a substantial scholarship in some field, which is built up over time, initially individually (PhD, postdocs) and then collaboratively.
People who have children to fill a “void” end up disappointed. They grow up, they move away, they either resent how little they had or how much they had given to them and what it has done or not done for their fledging careers.
I have three. No regrets, but I didn’t do it to give my life meaning. They are their own people and I am responsible for giving my life meaning, no one else.
At some point, you are back with yourself and own thoughts. This is neither good nor bad. It simply is.
My parents used to complain a lot about how much they sacrificed for me and I didn't get it.
Well now I do get it that I have a son, but I'll never say that to him. He is only 4.5 so we will see. I just don't want him to feel that he owes me anything. He doesn't owe me anything. Whatever I do for him, I do so willingly and the result is all mine to take, good or bad.
This is deeply interesting to me. For one thing, I’m in my sixties and I definitely feel like I’m the same person I was, fundamentally, as in my 20s. The world has changed and my body has changed and I make fewer mistakes but I never woke up and realized, “I’m an old man.” I know I am one, but I feel just fine. If anything, on balance I like being old. The fact that people slightly underestimate me now sets up a lot of good jokes.
Unrelatedly, I just finished reading the semipublished novel of a member of our community, who I believe is in his late 40s and who could probably never get through today’s traditional publishing because he is clearly autistic. I had low expectations, but it’s shockingly good. As in, if it had the right people behind it, it would easily be one of the top books in a given year. And I think the books written by people of his age are slightly different from those written at mine, and of course both perspectives are radically different from a Gen Z 20-year-old’s.
When you read young novelists, you get the first draft of a new generation’s perspective. I barely understand Millennials and Gen Z is still opaque to me because so few authors of real talent have bubbled up. They exist for sure, but nepo kids get exposure first so I have really hard to find the good ones.
As they age, writers get better at writing. But writing is not the sole determinant of good fiction and it is even less correlated to relevance. Old writers tend to produce books that are technically fantastic and that critics and career writers recognize as superlative in craft, and often quite creative contrary to stereotype because these people don’t stop learning, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be relevant to any current conversation. Young authors tend to produce work that is more jagged and less technically accomplished, but extremely relevant to the time. Ellis is a prime example: he wrote the quintessential novel of the Reagan Era—it’s shocking and disgusting and not brilliantly written, but well-written enough.
That said, “bad sentences” are one of those issues that writers agonize about but the fact is that editors will catch them if they’re truly awful. It also doesn’t have much to do with age, because old writers who understand grammar extremely well also make mistakes, which 95 percent of the time are typos. Either they are removed by the proofreader or they become part of the history.
Family members of mine at the VP/EVP level in “enterprise” type companies regularly work 12+ hours on weekdays and ~8 per day on weekends.
At that level, they’re in the club and guaranteed to advance as long as they don’t make enemies and get kicked out of the club (which is rare, but happens, and usually means they spend a year or so finding another club.) So while some of them do work long hours, they don’t have to. They’ve already been judged to be in the in-crowd and could work 10 hours per week from wherever they want, and they’d still make every promotion.
So why do they work so much, and why do they go to the office? Because most of those guys (a) mutually dislike their families, (b) have psychological disorders, and (c) have office affairs. To psychopaths, 70 hours per week sunk into high-stakes office politics is fun.
> So while some of them do work long hours, they don’t have to.
Or so you say. But it sounds like a rationalization of why that doesn't matter/makes them morally bad people. First it's "they don't actually do any work, lol", then it's "but they totally don't have to, they could skate by on 2 hours a day, they are already pre-selected for success".
But really, it's perfectly fine if you don't care that much and won't go to that length. You don't have to justify that by coming up with narratives that others who do are evil, mentally ill, or hate their families. You can just say "that's not for me".
Spoiler alert: That job security doesn’t exist anymore. A professor who isn’t winning grants, even if tenured, is functionally dead. Research doesn’t matter except as PR and teaching definitely doesn’t matter; the ability to raise grants is the singular determinant of an academic’s career.
Consequently, most academics despise university overhead because it reduces the number of grants to go around and they get nothing for it.
That does not, of course, mean they support Trump or Musk. Most do not.