Why has academia get a bad rap

[Monster92]

People don't consider it the 'real world'. Why is this the case? I'm sure becoming a professor or carrying out research is challenging. In fact, I think it's essential for us to progress as a species.

 

Nevertheless, there seems to be a segment of society that mocks it. So why the hate?

[CharonY]

People don't consider it the 'real world'. Why is this the case? I'm sure becoming a professor or carrying out research is challenging. In fact, I think it's essential for us to progress as a species.

 

Nevertheless, there seems to be a segment of society that mocks it. So why the hate?

 

It has little to do with hate per se. The major reason why academia is not considered the real world is because it operates on a number of different rules than e.g. companies. Academic research is set and funded around established scientific communities plus it operates as a provider of higher education. However, job advancement and structure and deliverables are quite different from, say industrial careers. Thus, e.g. academic science and corporate science start off from the same track (i.e. university education) but somewhat after the PhD it splits up running parallel to each other (with some exceptions). Since academic research is often somewhat self-contained (though heavily dependent on government funds), and the majority of PhDs eventually leave academia behind (due to lack of jobs for example) it is considered to be apart from the real world.

 

This is also reflected by the fact that uni experiences does not easily translate into industrial or corporate experience.

 

Edit: this is from a heavily biased viewpoint of the natural sciences, btw.

Edited March 7, 2011 by CharonY

[swansont]

I think it's that the research, especially in the social sciences, is viewed as so idealized that it doesn't apply in the messy real world. Which leads to the use of "in theory" as a pejorative description.

[Mr Skeptic]

Also, academia often focuses on "interestingness" rather than profitability, at least in some circles. Profitability might be a useful addition or a way to improve your odds of getting funding, but otherwise trying to estimate profitability is wasting time you would be working on something interesting. Then again it's not like you can really know what the profitability of research would be, otherwise it would be less researchy and more developy.

[timo]

Also, academia often focuses on "interestingness" rather than profitability, at least in some circles.

At least in the circles that I usually deal with scientifically, non-tenured scientists, the focus is "publishability" and "grantability" .

[lemur]

People don't consider it the 'real world'. Why is this the case? I'm sure becoming a professor or carrying out research is challenging. In fact, I think it's essential for us to progress as a species.

 

Nevertheless, there seems to be a segment of society that mocks it. So why the hate?

 

I think it has to do with the way modern bureaucratic economics have evolved. Whereas there used to be a lot more jobs extracting raw materials and working in industrial factories to process them, much of this work as been taken over by machines and more efficient systems, so much more bureaucratic and service work was developed to spread the prosperity and keep people busy. However, because people felt vulnerable on some level because humans were less necessary in a highly automated economy, they began to argue over who was more important/central to the post-industrial economy. Some people thought that surplus labor/time should be devoted to cultural and social progress, but others preferred the safer route of inserting themselves into expanding management structures of corporate control-systems for economic production and distribution. They did this because they wanted to be part of the supply chains from production to consumption. Then, they argue for social status by claiming that their work is more important or "real" than the work of innovation and charting courses for future developments. As a result, they generate their own economy of people managing people for the sake of controlling distribution and the means of consumption.

Edited March 8, 2011 by lemur

[jimmydasaint]

IMHO most of you, especially timo, have hit the nail on the head. You have to be able to publish and receive grants as an academic, in order to keep a reasonably high profile in the academic world. However, the further you go in Scientific research, the more you can end up in research of 'pure Science'. In short, there might be no direct useful result to your research except to add to the body of knowledge about an organism. For example, it may not be important to others whether or not a flagellated bacterium moves in a nutrient medium in a clockwise or anti-clockwise motion. However, to the individual researcher, he has fitted another part of the jigsaw puzzle in place, leaving it to others to discover other facets of the big picture.

 

The danger is that the academic loses touch with the real world. This may manifest itself in a loss of ability to enter into social discourse with students or the general public or in personality disorders. We all know stories about nutty professors. One of my favourites is about a Physics professor who wore the same sweater to all his lectures in the winter and, due to the summer heat, cut out oval patches in the armpits to aid air circulation in the summer.

[DrRocket]

People don't consider it the 'real world'. Why is this the case? I'm sure becoming a professor or carrying out research is challenging. In fact, I think it's essential for us to progress as a species.

 

Nevertheless, there seems to be a segment of society that mocks it. So why the hate?

 

I have been in academia and I have been in industry. While in industry we maintained cordial and mutually beneficial relations with academics in the physical sciences and engineering, and business schools.

 

On the other hand, if any of the so-called social sciences (e.g. political science) had disappeared we would have neither noticed nor cared. "Academia" is a big place. Some academics are well-acquainted with the "real world". Others are clueless.

 

As Swansont observed the word "theory" may influence opinions. A theory in mathematics or the physical sciences is quite different from a conjecture, and to call something a theory is a sign of high regard. In other areas it may be indistiguishable from a wild-ass guess.

[lemur]

For example, it may not be important to others whether or not a flagellated bacterium moves in a nutrient medium in a clockwise or anti-clockwise motion. However, to the individual researcher, he has fitted another part of the jigsaw puzzle in place, leaving it to others to discover other facets of the big picture.

Typically, those who criticize such science for being "out of touch" are just concerned about money. If you tell them that your research on the flagellated bacterium will lead to patentable engineer-able bacteria for performing various bio-medical interventions, they will be impressed because they think medical technology costs a lot and generates a lot of money. Then, if you tell them that the research will enable poor people living near the Amazon to use naturally-abundant bacteria to cure parasite-infections, people will say it's pointless research because they don't care about people living near the Amazon unless there's money in it. However, when you say that these same people who have no money have diets that cause cancers to shrink after they form, and studying the bacteria that cure the parasites will make it possible to develop cancer treatments, they will once again see the research as worthwhile. Capitalism has the nasty side effect for many people of causing them to divide the world into profitable vs. worthless aspects, when in fact science generally offers insights into numerous potential practical applications if people would be creative enough to come up with engineering applications for them.

[ajb]

People don't consider it the 'real world'. Why is this the case? I'm sure becoming a professor or carrying out research is challenging. In fact, I think it's essential for us to progress as a species.

 

Nevertheless, there seems to be a segment of society that mocks it. So why the hate?

 

You will also encounter a kind of inverted snobbery and jealousy from the general public. The "I went to the university of real life" will be stated to you quite often.

 

You will get things about your experiences being somehow "less real" or "important". This really annoys me, everyone's life and experiences are just as real to them as anyone else's.

 

In the words of a great philosopher "I pity the fool".

[CharonY]

At least in the circles that I usually deal with scientifically, non-tenured scientists, the focus is "publishability" and "grantability"

QTF.

 

Lemur, interestingly all the examples you gave are applied sciences (regardless whether they apply to biotech applications or benefit people in the Amazonas). Basic research tends to be way more, well, basic than that. Of course, still justifications are being made on the potential impact, but no one seriously expects that it will lead to it in the foreseeable future (if it did it would venture into the realm of applied science).

[lemur]

QTF.

 

Lemur, interestingly all the examples you gave are applied sciences (regardless whether they apply to biotech applications or benefit people in the Amazonas). Basic research tends to be way more, well, basic than that. Of course, still justifications are being made on the potential impact, but no one seriously expects that it will lead to it in the foreseeable future (if it did it would venture into the realm of applied science).

I bet you couldn't produce an example of fundamental science that I couldn't contextualize with a potential application.

[DrRocket]

I bet you couldn't produce an example of fundamental science that I couldn't contextualize with a potential application.

 

quantum gravity, whatever it may eventually turn out to be.

[lemur]

quantum gravity, whatever it may eventually turn out to be.

Probably it will shed light on the fundamental relationship between gravity and electromagnetic force, which could revolutionize practically everything we understand about the relationship between matter and energy, no? A less fundamental example might be better because its practical consequences could be circumscribed better.

[DrRocket]

Probably it will shed light on the fundamental relationship between gravity and electromagnetic force, which could revolutionize practically everything we understand about the relationship between matter and energy, no? A less fundamental example might be better because its practical consequences could be circumscribed better.

 

"Understanding" is the subject of fundamental researxh. In fact the seeking of fundamental understanding as opposed to the use of that understanding is what distinguishes basic from applied science.

 

In short you did not meet the challenge.

 

Of course a less fundamental example might make it easier for you, but that is not the point of the challenge that you issued.

 

Since quantum gravity seems to be important in the interior of the event horizon of black holes and in the initial 10^-33 seconds or so following the big bang, while existing theories are rather good otherwise, it is not surprising that "practical applications" are difficult to identify.

[lemur]

"Understanding" is the subject of fundamental researxh. In fact the seeking of fundamental understanding as opposed to the use of that understanding is what distinguishes basic from applied science.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that fundamental understanding can't result in practical applications. Distinction doesn't necessitate absolute separation.

 

Since quantum gravity seems to be important in the interior of the event horizon of black holes and in the initial 10^-33 seconds or so following the big bang, while existing theories are rather good otherwise, it is not surprising that "practical applications" are difficult to identify.

Who's to say that humans won't be generating artificial black holes at some point for the sake of accelerating matter into them? Controlling black hole formation, growth, and gravitation may all be technological applications of quantum gravity, no?

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that fundamental understanding can't result in practical applications. Distinction doesn't necessitate absolute separation.

 

 

Who's to say that humans won't be generating artificial black holes at some point for the sake of accelerating matter into them? Controlling black hole formation, growth, and gravitation may all be technological applications of quantum gravity, no?

 

And that's kind of the point -- fundamental research will almost certainly turn out to be vitally important, to change everything we do... but we won't have an idea how until long afterward.

[DrRocket]

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that fundamental understanding can't result in practical applications. Distinction doesn't necessitate absolute separation.

 

The distinction lies in the objective of and motivation for the research

 

 

Who's to say that humans won't be generating artificial black holes at some point for the sake of accelerating matter into them? Controlling black hole formation, growth, and gravitation may all be technological applications of quantum gravity, no?

 

 

 

No cigar.

 

1. Too non-specific.

 

2. There is no reason to believe quantum gravity is significant in understanding how to create black holes. GR appears to be adequate -- it is the means by which the existence of black holes was predicted.

 

And that's kind of the point -- fundamental research will almost certainly turn out to be vitally important, to change everything we do... but we won't have an idea how until long afterward.

 

That certainly seems to be the pattern in the past.

[lemur]

The distinction lies in the objective of and motivation for the research

Those refer to the cause of research, not the effects.

 

1. Too non-specific.

why?

 

2. There is no reason to believe quantum gravity is significant in understanding how to create black holes. GR appears to be adequate -- it is the means by which the existence of black holes was predicted.

It would be if you wanted to create a very small black hole by means of organizing sub-atomic particles.

 

 

 

[CharonY]

Lemur, you are totally missing the point. Even basic research is usually framed within an applied context. The difference is that there usually is no defined path to that application. Sure, genomics may lead to elimination of all diseases and make us immortal. But find a way there.

In industrial settings they are interested in a product that can be pushed to the market. Things are usually bought off from unis (or result in startups) if they get close to that point. Before that it is mostly hands-off nowadays.

There are exceptions in areas which promise high rewards, as e.g. with biofuel development from bacteria. But even then after the initial results were rather disappointing many companies pulled the plug.

 

But from what I heard from friends and colleagues in companies, the real world comment is less about funding or doing theoretical work, but is rather about the difference between university and corporate culture. One case is job experience, for example. In corporate settings you are expected to get better with experience (for the most part) and more experience can result in better positions. In academia, on the other hand, there are positions that run parallel to a career. Doing long postdocs, for instance, does not count as experience past the first few years, but at some point makes you actually less attractive as a job candidate (either in or outside academia). Also, non-tenure track positions carry a similar stigma (for slightly other reasons).

 

Also there is the corporate belief (which is true to a limited extent) that academics are less familiar with the concept of deliverables. One could argue something similar on the management level for industrial positions, too, though.

[ecoli]

Lemur, you are totally missing the point. Even basic research is usually framed within an applied context.

 

I get the impression that this is to justify getting funding, not because the researcher necessarily cares that the application exists. Just my hunch being in academia now.

 

Slightly related: during a [PhD] interview, a medical doctor [who I guess did research] really chewed me out for working on E. coli during undergrad, saying that if I should focus on doing the most good for the most people and study HIV. I explained that as an undergrad I was limited in the labs I could join, and that I was interested in helping people (was I lying?) and that Urinary tract infections, mostly from E. coli cost patients/insurance $2 billion a year, so who's to say it's not an important problem, anyway? Dude was a total dick. Didn't get into the school, but it was low ranked anyway. As if all the money being pumped into HIV research is getting returned?

[swansont]

I get the impression that this is to justify getting funding, not because the researcher necessarily cares that the application exists. Just my hunch being in academia now.

 

I concur. I see stuff in press releases about how some advance will help in quantum computing or atomic clocks, but there's no direct path to that actually happening. That's not to say that the discoveries won't be useful somewhere, but the "applied science" justification for doing the research is close to fantasy.

[CharonY]

I get the impression that this is to justify getting funding, not because the researcher necessarily cares that the application exists. Just my hunch being in academia now.

 

Of course. That is what I meant with the difference of basic science that use justification to frame a context and actual applied science that try to develop a finalized product. Between both is usually quite a sizable gap.

As well as funding sources, btw.

[Rip:20]

I concur. I see stuff in press releases about how some advance will help in quantum computing or atomic clocks, but there's no direct path to that actually happening. That's not to say that the discoveries won't be useful somewhere, but the "applied science" justification for doing the research is close to fantasy.

 

Yup. The stuff I see used to meet the NSF's somewhat new "broader impacts" evaluation criteria are often pretty funny post hoc add ons. A common easy cop out is that the grant will enable training opportunities for students. Not that that's not an admirable goal, but it's actually good to come out of our strange obsessions sometimes and think this stuff through. Although there might not be a directly visible route to an application, you can still use your imagination to come up with stuff that at least meshes with your hypotheses a bit more directly.