7 ms·

These kinds of things are daily discussions in laboratories all over the world. Everyone knows there's no future in academia, and so everyone is looking for an

These kinds of things are daily discussions in laboratories all over the world. Everyone knows there's no future in academia, and so everyone is looking for an exit plan. I actively discourage people from doing a PhD. Academia is a horrible feudalistic system that doesn't pay well enough to keep the bright minds it attracts. There is no sense in being a post-doc for life. Much better to take that hedge fund job. The really concerning potential consequence of this is that it could result in a dearth of innovation in cures for diseases, and we won't see the affect of losses until 5 or 10 years down the road. No one will fund a biotech startup that's not backed by MDs or PhDs and academia-approved proof-of-concept results. Good luck getting that when everyone is running for the lifeboats.

asgard1024 13y ago
Are you sure it's feudalism? It seems to me that the problem is in the modern management methods and always expecting results and publications, and tying finance to that, which is very shortsighted. But maybe you could explain better what you mean and what's more feudal about current system than what it always had been.
shas3 13y ago
> I actively discourage people from doing a PhD. Academia is a horrible feudalistic system that doesn't pay well enough to keep the bright minds it attracts. There is no sense in being a post-doc for life. Much better to take that hedge fund job. Underlying your comment is the assumption that every one wants the hedge fund (or other) job. One of the allures of academia is the prospect of doing fundamental research. You ignore that many people derive satisfaction from doing fundamental research that has the potential to be widely used across the research community (and possibly, for product development, e.g. industry labs, some government labs). It is simplistic to dismiss academia as a feudalistic system. There are merits, demerits, and other nuances. Also, there are, figuratively speaking, thousands of academic fields, each with its own system and culture. For example, academic jobs are plentiful for PhD graduates in these areas (in my experience): information technology/information systems (as opposed to computer science), management, accounting, finance, organizational behavior, etc. A summary dismissal of academia as 'feudal', especially when such an assessment underlies 'advice' is an unnecessary exaggeration.
- jseliger 13y ago
  One of the allures of academia is the prospect of doing fundamental research It's also a false allure: the problem is that fundamental research requires funding, and the OP is pointing out that he can't get it. He'll be in essence locked out of research and not make a lot of money at it. This is like saying, "One of the allures of acting is the prospect of being famous and sleeping with lots of fans." On the one hand it's true; on the other, it's very unlikely.
  - shas3 13y ago
    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.
    - HarryHirsch 13y ago
      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.
    - larrys 13y ago
      "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".
newaccountfool 13y ago
I think you completely miss the point of why a lot of people do a PHD. The love of the subject. Also, the pay after gaining a PHD in a certain field is most certainly worth it.
- john_b 13y ago
  The love of the subject is a given. The article states as much. The whole point of the article is that the rewards of an academic life are not presently commensurate with the risks and sacrificies it entails. The pay "in a certain field" is irrelevant; the article is about pay and working conditions in academia.
- pekk 13y ago
  People say this kind of thing when they don't have experience of what it's actually like. A PhD is not a continuation of undergraduate or independent study in a subject. It is a career with the tedium of other careers, and then some because so many other people are trying to do the same thing you are. You may love the subject now, but that doesn't mean you are going to be able to do the research you want. At various points in your career you have to do what your adviser wants, manage departmental politics, get funding and crank out publications. Maybe love of the subject helps you stick to it, but more likely it doesn't make a lot of practical difference once it's a tedious job you do every day. The pay after spending an equal amount of time in any other career with the same background is likely to be better.
  - Brashman 13y ago
    I wish we would stop referring to doing a PhD as "school" and the people doing it as "students". Call it what it is. They're junior researchers. I get that doing a PhD is also meant to be a training process, but working in industry also involves training and learning.
    - analog31 13y ago
      Kind of like "student" athletes, with presumably the same outcomes?
rjzzleep 13y ago
i wish it was just the money. when i went into the university i was hoping to find people like me. it attracts bright minds, but it doesn't encourage them in any sort of way. a bright mind in that system is worth "almost" the same as the average joe who studied enough to pass through the system. so we're there, scattered, with no means to find each other. some of them do so anyway, it's what keeps them put up with the rest of the bs. some of them end up like me, pretty much alone, and then eventually lose interest. i'm not saying the average joe shouldn't get into the university, i'm not even saying the others should get preferential treatment, but what benefit is it to be packed in basics classes that you don't need to anyway? you don't get to skip classes you already know, you have to sit through them, and waste your time. you take away time that could be used to teach the less gifted. you fill a spot which is valuable in the beginning, at the end not so much, because most will have dropped out by then. i believe that we need to get away from the notion that everyone should study exactly the same. i don't see how it makes sense at all. and the same goes for phd's. which is essentially a pretty static period of underpaid work. but that would take effort wouldn't it?
- kd0amg 13y ago
  but what benefit is it to be packed in basics classes that you don't need to anyone? you don't get to skip classes you already know, you have to sit through them, and waste your time When I chose where to study (for undergrad), a major factor in the decision was minimizing the amount of coursework I would have to repeat.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    This is exactly what I'm doing now for my electrical engineering degree (following on from a Masters in Chemistry). The big advantage is pretty much all of what I'm doing now is new and relevant material, and its great!
- pekk 13y ago
  The underpaid work is different for each PhD candidate
skosuri 13y ago
After my Ph.D., I went to a startup doing biofuels (Joule Unlimited), and then came back to academia to do a postdoc, and again it was difficult to decide between industry and academia. In the end, I chose to stay in academia because many of my goals in biotech will require a lot of fundamental research before they are able to attract angel/venture funding. As a new assistant professor (as of two months ago), I do have to apply for lots of grants, but in the end, the funding is not so bleak that it's hopeless (got our first grant last week). It does however require me to pick and choose only the most promising projects that can produce results in the near-ish term (2-3 years) and apply technologies we are developing for the larger end-goals to problems in human health and disease. I think that's a fair tradeoff for now. I think we will be able to do the longer-term projects more slowly on the side as well as interface with startups and companies to attack commercial problems where it makes sense. The problems we face today are because we hit a steady-state in funding, rather than continuing to grow as we've done over previous decades. One can argue we should continue to grow, but at some point we are going to hit a steady-state again and the situation will be the same. There are many interesting proposals on how best to reach a better structure for steady-state funding, but in the end, hard decisions like the one the OP made are going to continue being just that; hard decisions. I think the positive of the whole thing is that there are other options that grad students/post-docs can now consider in biology that aren't a tenure-track position, and that overall is a good thing.
- DaveWalk 13y ago
  I wanted to give you kudos for stating the level-headed answer that isn't brought up often in these doom and gloom articles: >...funding is not so bleak that it's hopeless. [It] does however require me to pick and choose only the most promising projects I feel part of the reason for the anger shown in this conversation is the definition of "academic freedom." Academia is more free than other avenues of research, but it isn't completely free; your grants have to be convincing enough to get funded, and this is how the system was built. This distinction can be subtle, but can only be seen with a certain degree of level-headedness.
yodsanklai 13y ago
"Much better to take that hedge fund job." Unfortunately, not every PhD student can expect to get a well-paid job outside academia.
FD3SA 13y ago
Absolutely correct. The beauty of capitalism is that it is a blind mouse running through a maze. We won't know what the impacts of a decline in research funding will be, but there's only one way to find out! Will it be another Dark Age? Or will it be Galt's Gluch? Stay tuned! Inspected rationally, this sort of national gamble is the definition of insanity. It wasn't "American Exceptionalism" that made the U.S.A what it is, but an unprecedented leve of concerted investment by the state into science and technology over the past century. Let's see where this grand experiment leads us. Relevant HN post from earlier, where I elaborate on this issue further: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7321660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7321660
prirun 13y ago
The medical / pharma industry is not interested in cures for diseases; they only want lifelong treatments. True capitalists, seeking maximum profit.
- cma 13y ago
  What's the distinction? Whether they sell a thousand symptom suppression pills over a lifetime at $20 or 1 cure pill at $20,000 what does it matter? Are you saying people literally pay by pill count? Patents are monopolies, they don't charge the marignal production cost of one pill while they hold a patent, they charge what the market will pay.
  - porlw 13y ago
    It makes it easier to price discriminate between rich and poor customers.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- tsotha 13y ago
  Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever, or is this just casual slander?
return0 13y ago
The need for innovation exists regardless of whether there are researchers working in the publicly-funded sector. And, let's face it, much of the research coming out is the result of 'publish or perish' rather than genuine curiosity. Many great things in the past came from private research. Today's technology companies will probably be forced to invest more in their in-house research rather than acquiring competitors at sky-high prices.
mathattack 13y ago
Here's the open question... If people are really forced to work on 2 year time horizons, should this investment really be happening in the private sector rather than the government? I get the idea of funding basic science with 20+ year time horizons to benefit humanity, but tactical solutions? Separately - is this an issue with just new scientists, or existing ones too? The useful data would be "Total NIH funding" and "Per scientist funding." My anecdotal (and quite possibly unrepresentative!) data is that the total pie is staying the same size, but going to a set of existing researchers in a "Winner Takes All" manner. It's not conducive to new independent researchers, but perhaps we are creating too many for a fixed pie of research money. Alternatively, should tuition be funding research if we are now in the business of producing researchers for the private sector? It just seems to me that long term science as a group of scientists begging for government funding is no longer sustainable.
mathattack 13y ago
This may be a stupid question, but is the unintended consequence of too many Phds not enough MDs? http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/04/americas-painful-doctor-shortage-is-threatening-healthcare-reform/ http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/04/americas-pa... It sounds like when the free market competes with the NIH for talent, the NIH wins. Perhaps the slowdown in NIH growth can incent folks with that skillset to go into medicine.

asgard1024 13y ago

Are you sure it's feudalism? It seems to me that the problem is in the modern management methods and always expecting results and publications, and tying finance to that, which is very shortsighted. But maybe you could explain better what you mean and what's more feudal about current system than what it always had been.

shas3 13y ago

> I actively discourage people from doing a PhD. Academia is a horrible feudalistic system that doesn't pay well enough to keep the bright minds it attracts. There is no sense in being a post-doc for life. Much better to take that hedge fund job. Underlying your comment is the assumption that every one wants the hedge fund (or other) job. One of the allures of academia is the prospect of doing fundamental research. You ignore that many people derive satisfaction from doing fundamental research that has the potential to be widely used across the research community (and possibly, for product development, e.g. industry labs, some government labs). It is simplistic to dismiss academia as a feudalistic system. There are merits, demerits, and other nuances. Also, there are, figuratively speaking, thousands of academic fields, each with its own system and culture. For example, academic jobs are plentiful for PhD graduates in these areas (in my experience): information technology/information systems (as opposed to computer science), management, accounting, finance, organizational behavior, etc. A summary dismissal of academia as 'feudal', especially when such an assessment underlies 'advice' is an unnecessary exaggeration.

jseliger 13y ago
One of the allures of academia is the prospect of doing fundamental research It's also a false allure: the problem is that fundamental research requires funding, and the OP is pointing out that he can't get it. He'll be in essence locked out of research and not make a lot of money at it. This is like saying, "One of the allures of acting is the prospect of being famous and sleeping with lots of fans." On the one hand it's true; on the other, it's very unlikely.
- shas3 13y ago
  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.
  - HarryHirsch 13y ago
    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.
  - larrys 13y ago
    "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".

newaccountfool 13y ago

I think you completely miss the point of why a lot of people do a PHD. The love of the subject. Also, the pay after gaining a PHD in a certain field is most certainly worth it.

john_b 13y ago
The love of the subject is a given. The article states as much. The whole point of the article is that the rewards of an academic life are not presently commensurate with the risks and sacrificies it entails. The pay "in a certain field" is irrelevant; the article is about pay and working conditions in academia.
pekk 13y ago
People say this kind of thing when they don't have experience of what it's actually like. A PhD is not a continuation of undergraduate or independent study in a subject. It is a career with the tedium of other careers, and then some because so many other people are trying to do the same thing you are. You may love the subject now, but that doesn't mean you are going to be able to do the research you want. At various points in your career you have to do what your adviser wants, manage departmental politics, get funding and crank out publications. Maybe love of the subject helps you stick to it, but more likely it doesn't make a lot of practical difference once it's a tedious job you do every day. The pay after spending an equal amount of time in any other career with the same background is likely to be better.
- Brashman 13y ago
  I wish we would stop referring to doing a PhD as "school" and the people doing it as "students". Call it what it is. They're junior researchers. I get that doing a PhD is also meant to be a training process, but working in industry also involves training and learning.
  - analog31 13y ago
    Kind of like "student" athletes, with presumably the same outcomes?

rjzzleep 13y ago

i wish it was just the money. when i went into the university i was hoping to find people like me. it attracts bright minds, but it doesn't encourage them in any sort of way. a bright mind in that system is worth "almost" the same as the average joe who studied enough to pass through the system. so we're there, scattered, with no means to find each other. some of them do so anyway, it's what keeps them put up with the rest of the bs. some of them end up like me, pretty much alone, and then eventually lose interest. i'm not saying the average joe shouldn't get into the university, i'm not even saying the others should get preferential treatment, but what benefit is it to be packed in basics classes that you don't need to anyway? you don't get to skip classes you already know, you have to sit through them, and waste your time. you take away time that could be used to teach the less gifted. you fill a spot which is valuable in the beginning, at the end not so much, because most will have dropped out by then. i believe that we need to get away from the notion that everyone should study exactly the same. i don't see how it makes sense at all. and the same goes for phd's. which is essentially a pretty static period of underpaid work. but that would take effort wouldn't it?

kd0amg 13y ago
but what benefit is it to be packed in basics classes that you don't need to anyone? you don't get to skip classes you already know, you have to sit through them, and waste your time When I chose where to study (for undergrad), a major factor in the decision was minimizing the amount of coursework I would have to repeat.
- XorNot 13y ago
  This is exactly what I'm doing now for my electrical engineering degree (following on from a Masters in Chemistry). The big advantage is pretty much all of what I'm doing now is new and relevant material, and its great!
pekk 13y ago
The underpaid work is different for each PhD candidate

skosuri 13y ago

After my Ph.D., I went to a startup doing biofuels (Joule Unlimited), and then came back to academia to do a postdoc, and again it was difficult to decide between industry and academia. In the end, I chose to stay in academia because many of my goals in biotech will require a lot of fundamental research before they are able to attract angel/venture funding. As a new assistant professor (as of two months ago), I do have to apply for lots of grants, but in the end, the funding is not so bleak that it's hopeless (got our first grant last week). It does however require me to pick and choose only the most promising projects that can produce results in the near-ish term (2-3 years) and apply technologies we are developing for the larger end-goals to problems in human health and disease. I think that's a fair tradeoff for now. I think we will be able to do the longer-term projects more slowly on the side as well as interface with startups and companies to attack commercial problems where it makes sense. The problems we face today are because we hit a steady-state in funding, rather than continuing to grow as we've done over previous decades. One can argue we should continue to grow, but at some point we are going to hit a steady-state again and the situation will be the same. There are many interesting proposals on how best to reach a better structure for steady-state funding, but in the end, hard decisions like the one the OP made are going to continue being just that; hard decisions. I think the positive of the whole thing is that there are other options that grad students/post-docs can now consider in biology that aren't a tenure-track position, and that overall is a good thing.

DaveWalk 13y ago
I wanted to give you kudos for stating the level-headed answer that isn't brought up often in these doom and gloom articles: >...funding is not so bleak that it's hopeless. [It] does however require me to pick and choose only the most promising projects I feel part of the reason for the anger shown in this conversation is the definition of "academic freedom." Academia is more free than other avenues of research, but it isn't completely free; your grants have to be convincing enough to get funded, and this is how the system was built. This distinction can be subtle, but can only be seen with a certain degree of level-headedness.

yodsanklai 13y ago

"Much better to take that hedge fund job." Unfortunately, not every PhD student can expect to get a well-paid job outside academia.

FD3SA 13y ago

Absolutely correct. The beauty of capitalism is that it is a blind mouse running through a maze. We won't know what the impacts of a decline in research funding will be, but there's only one way to find out! Will it be another Dark Age? Or will it be Galt's Gluch? Stay tuned! Inspected rationally, this sort of national gamble is the definition of insanity. It wasn't "American Exceptionalism" that made the U.S.A what it is, but an unprecedented leve of concerted investment by the state into science and technology over the past century. Let's see where this grand experiment leads us. Relevant HN post from earlier, where I elaborate on this issue further: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7321660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7321660

prirun 13y ago

The medical / pharma industry is not interested in cures for diseases; they only want lifelong treatments. True capitalists, seeking maximum profit.

cma 13y ago
What's the distinction? Whether they sell a thousand symptom suppression pills over a lifetime at $20 or 1 cure pill at $20,000 what does it matter? Are you saying people literally pay by pill count? Patents are monopolies, they don't charge the marignal production cost of one pill while they hold a patent, they charge what the market will pay.
- porlw 13y ago
  It makes it easier to price discriminate between rich and poor customers.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
tsotha 13y ago
Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever, or is this just casual slander?

return0 13y ago

The need for innovation exists regardless of whether there are researchers working in the publicly-funded sector. And, let's face it, much of the research coming out is the result of 'publish or perish' rather than genuine curiosity. Many great things in the past came from private research. Today's technology companies will probably be forced to invest more in their in-house research rather than acquiring competitors at sky-high prices.

mathattack 13y ago

Here's the open question... If people are really forced to work on 2 year time horizons, should this investment really be happening in the private sector rather than the government? I get the idea of funding basic science with 20+ year time horizons to benefit humanity, but tactical solutions? Separately - is this an issue with just new scientists, or existing ones too? The useful data would be "Total NIH funding" and "Per scientist funding." My anecdotal (and quite possibly unrepresentative!) data is that the total pie is staying the same size, but going to a set of existing researchers in a "Winner Takes All" manner. It's not conducive to new independent researchers, but perhaps we are creating too many for a fixed pie of research money. Alternatively, should tuition be funding research if we are now in the business of producing researchers for the private sector? It just seems to me that long term science as a group of scientists begging for government funding is no longer sustainable.

mathattack 13y ago

This may be a stupid question, but is the unintended consequence of too many Phds not enough MDs? http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/04/americas-painful-doctor-shortage-is-threatening-healthcare-reform/ http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/04/americas-pa... It sounds like when the free market competes with the NIH for talent, the NIH wins. Perhaps the slowdown in NIH growth can incent folks with that skillset to go into medicine.