• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I think it’s funny how academia selects people based on their scientific aptitude and research experience and then puts them into positions where they have to spend much of their time teaching (something they may not have the aptitude for and definitely aren’t trained to do) and writing grant proposals. The more experience people have, the less time they have to do research (with the exception of a relatively small number of celebrity professors).

    With that said, I’m not sure how things could be changed for the better. I’d say that some training in teaching would be good, but I think most academics don’t actually want that. Being a TA was already an unwelcome imposition back when I was a grad student, so I wouldn’t have wanted to spend more time away from my research to become a better TA.

    • Dadifer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s obvious how to make it better: spend as much money on scientific progress as we do on figuring out how to blow brown people up.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I wouldn’t be opposed to more funding but there would still have to be some way to decide who to fund and making a good case that one’s research is worthwhile is always going to take a long time.

        • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Create gov science centers for each major branch of science, provide funding. Allow them to delegate within their narrower and narrower fields with loose requirements such as x-y% is salary a-b% is resources, and maybe something like each new study can get no less than $z and no More than $r.

          I’m not saying this is perfect but spending more money towards it in general and allowing some branch delegation of funding would hopefully at least resolve the grant writing part and ensure salary. Though I’m not sure how one would ensure that they are being productive and not doing frivolous things on purpose. Perhaps q amount of hours a year must go to a gov decided research project and the rest is up to the researcher.

          Maybe funding for a project is aquired through hours contributed to projects the gov deems with a standard for high social benefit? I.E. You help with the research on this new hydro electric tech (regardless of outcome because we feel it’s an important study topic) and we pay ($p per hour spent on hydro tech) towards a study of your choice.

        • Dadifer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          No, it only takes a long time because there’s so little to go around. Do you think defense funding takes months and years to award grants? No.

          • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            There are literally decades-long proposals, initial R&D and prototyping for big defense contracts.

            No, they aren’t taking years to award a new contract for the paper provider, but they are for new weapons and vehicles.

  • anar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I think Arts and Sciences folks need to team up and fuck up Commerce bros.

      • anar@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        How do you define Tech bros? I lump them in Commerce category in my head.

        Computer Science/Engineering people I have encountered are more into liberatory politics (whether they overtly acknowledge it/are awareof it or not)

        • prowling4973@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 days ago

          I define tech bros as people who want to solve every single problem with an app. World hunger? I’m building an app for it, bro. Climate crisis? I’m building an app for it.

          For instance, the number of COVID trackers built in 2020 was ridiculous. These websites/apps didn’t really make any meaningful difference, but the people who built it speak about it like it did.

          Also see: accelerationism.

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I played the game for a long time. Then I went to industry and never looked back.

    I totally, totally get people who stay in academia. I’ve had and in a way still have the dream. But: the struggle is just as bad if not worse than industry, while the money in industry is much, much better.

  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    really? did you not know? I spent one year in a PhD program and although I dreamed my whole life of researching the natural world and teaching I realized I really like eathing and having climate controlled shelter.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yea, I figured this out my first year of classes.

      It’s not like it’s unknown, and I started college in the 80’s.