Real lessons http://katz.fastmail.us/scientist.html
Doing so would be painful but would force universities to be real about their priorities.
Increasing available funds without changing the system will just increase the scope of the pyramid scheme without changing anything. You have to do both.
This style of argument is commonly presented here. In discussion here very, very often, people point out "the system will be abused". Most of my friends in Science are content with where they are at. They work super hard, are super intelligent, are often making the best of smaller institutions, and they wouldn't think twice about scamming the system, abusing it, etc. Maybe the liberal mindset bias is in effect here, I'm absolutely certain there are those abusing the system. I feel like the opinions here, in HN, frequently depend so much on assuming that everyone is out to screw their neighbor, at the first chance they get. It's sad (and contrary to the guidelines at some level- assume the best, work from there).
My experience is that experiences in science can vary tremendously depending on the institution, which in itself is part of the problem. Some institutions and fields are basically as you describe, and people are basically humble, hardworking, and make do sincerely and resourcefully.
Many, many institutions, though, are dysfunctional and corrupt. Increasingly indirect funds are the primary goal in evaluating scientists and scientific contributions, period. I could tell many personal anecdotes about this, from my own experience as well as those of others (as tenured faculty), but it is not an exaggeration to say that the primary motive in many departments, at least in the biomedical sciences, is indirect funds from the federal government. This has been acknowledged as such in commentaries by formal heads of federal funding agencies.
I can explain how this distorts many things, but I have seen these pyramid schemes persist even in the presence of these discussions, without any acknowledgement by programs or colleges. They simply do not care because to do so would cost them indirects.
One thing that's upsetting to me is that the people who are well-situated of course are not harmed. They benefit, and are happy to continue with the status quo because they have thrived under it, and don't have to deal with the consequences in terms of misplaced shame, lost years and salaries, and lost opportunities. It also distorts scientific process, leading to endless discussions of p-values versus Bayesian CIs that don't matter because the problem is hype chasing and monetary incentives.
The thing is, it's not even necessarily about the scientists, many of whom may be very well-meaning as you describe. It's at a higher level, in terms of program and hiring strategy, departmental organization, etc. The people doing well may not even be aware of the fact that for every group of theirs that is doing well, getting along, etc. there are many times more people who weren't allowed in the group, who got in with a bad crowd, who were manipulated or taken advantage of, or so forth.
I often get this sense that the counterarguments go something like this: "well, science is still making a lot of progress" and "good people are getting along fine" which has this Machiavellian flavor to it. The question isn't whether or not progress is being made, it's how much better could things be if they were different?
I'm also not saying funding shouldn't be increased, I'm just saying that there have to be serious structural changes to go along with it as well, otherwise we're going to end up with the same problems at a bigger scale.
Since the 1950s US institutions have been producing many more grad students than there could ever possibly be positions for. This simply increases the competition and favors anti-competitive approaches to science (block alternative theories funding, buddy up with a few others to control what papers get accepted to conferences etc. )
The issue is that there really is less and less work on the bottom (farming etc). There is actually less work in even blue collar due to how things are made (thrown out). So where do people work?
Why wouldnt 2022 have like a population of 60% scientists? Would you rather them fill bullshit jobs?
I think we need a more stable funding model for science that doesn't incentivize gaming the system. I'd love it if 60% of the population had stable employement as scientists while robots did everything else for us, but spending 100x on our current science infrastructure would probably mean less output unless we allow greater independence and stability.
I assume you mean $ for infrastructure as in physical buildings or something, not $ for research? Either way, I can imagine no world in which 100x $ will mean less output in Science. I'd entertain less output/$ arguments, but flat out adding money meaning less Science being done?!? If you do mean this then I supect you haven't written grants, nor (formally) reviewed them on a board, nor struggled for reagents, used surplus computers, or pined for a better microscope, or figured out what field work to cut etc. etc... if this is your take.
As for the fields finishing decades ago. Yes some of them have become quite well defined (Physics) but there still is plenty of room for applied science and engineering in these areas.
Ruined, really? Like living on the street ruined? Anyone with a PhD in Physics has opportunities. They might not be able to get a tenure track job in a Physics department, but there are many, many other opportunities, even in academia. For example, several of the best oceanographers I've worked with are Physics PhDs.
> Ruined, really?
The "I" in that sentence is doing a lot of work, and Katz is a sort of generally a foolish know-it-all on everything outside of his field. See, e.g., his defense of the Iraq war. Sounds like he knows everything, but the blind spots are astounding (and now, two decades later, finally obvious to even the least informed layman.) I remember reading it and shaking my head at the time -- 'this is what dunning-kruger looks like!'. The piece aged about as well as I would've predicted at the time.
From what I've heard about Katz and his advising... style... the selection bias of this "I" is particularly perverse.
That said...
> Like living on the street ruined?
Yes, and this is a MUCH more serious problem than you're giving it credit for.
PhD stipends are NOT normal salaries/wages! AFAIK it's literally the only full-time position where the employer does not have to pay FICA taxes. That means no unemployment benefits. That means homelessness if you don't find a job immediately after graduation.
Why might you not find a job immediately after completing a physics phd? Perhaps you graduate during a multi-year hiring slow-down caused by a global pandemic or a financial crisis. I.e., you're one of roughly a third of recent cohorts.
I've known many people who failed to find a post-doc and ended up homeless for a period of time because they didn't realize that they couldn't even rely on federal unemployment as a stop-gap. One of my wife's former peers slept on our couch for a couple months.
I've know many, MANY more people who would've been homeless for a period of time in their late 20s after half a decade of working full-time had it not been for family support. Truly astounding numbers. Perhaps 1/2 to 2/3rds of my wife's graduating cohort fell into that category.
I opted out of academia with TT offers in hand because I don't understand how people can run a group staffed by grad students and look themselves in the mirror in the morning.
> PhD stipends are NOT normal salaries/wages!
I always saw it as a really good deal to be getting paid to go to school!
> I don't understand how people can run a group staffed by grad students and look themselves in the mirror in the morning.
The several that I know do this by helping them find jobs --after-- before they are done. And if the jobs are outside of academia, they are usually well paying (engineering, or software engineering etc, in the defense industry).
Ugh.
You and I both know that PhD students spend very little time in coursework, and that the quantity and quality of that coursework in nowhere near the differential in their earnings. You later mention Software Engineering. Those jobs can be had with a BA/BS and no graduate coursework. So the earning differential is what? Lowest end 30K/yr and up to 100K/yr? Over 5 years, that's hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's WAAAY more graduate coursework that the typical PhD student takes during their program.
And that's assuming the employee pays for coursework.
Do you know what I pay my "junior employees who just finished undergraduate"? At least six figures. AND our company pays tuition if they decide they want to take some graduate coursework. Which isn't exactly a rare benefit. I'm also highly confident I do a better job at mentoring than a huge portion of R1 faculty. Many of my direct reports have more first author papers than the average PhD candidate.
Pay your junior employees what they're worth. Or, if you can't, at least pay into their federal disability/uneumployment insurance so that if they get hit by a bus and can't work they aren't completely fucked! Or, if you can't do either, at least be honest about how horridly exploitative the situation is, both with them and with yourself.
Again, if R1 professors are not exploiting these poor kids, then why are R1 professors the ONLY mid-level managers in the entire country whose direct reports don't receive unemployment insurance? Seeking out the only exemption in the entire country to paying your direct report's Social Security, Disability, and Unemployment is absolutely absurd and horridly unethical if you stop and think about it for even a second.
I don't know how people who work in the academic industry are able to convince themselves that what they are dong isn't reprehensible. I guess if you're smart enough it's easy to talk yourself into anything.
> The several that I know do this by helping them find jobs --after-- before they are done.
That's totally irrelevant. It's the years of absurdly underpaid labor that I would feel guilty about, not the job prospects at graduation.
> And if the jobs are outside of academia, they are usually well paying (engineering, or software engineering etc, in the defense industry).
I find that most academics who say this are full of shit and did very little to actually help their students find employment.
I once had a conversation with a math professor who told me that he tells his phd grads to just "go into finance" if they can't find an academic job. This was in 2009.
That aside, all of those jobs are available by simply dropping out after year two with a masters degree. Or, often, right after undergraduate.
Again, I don't get how academics look themselves in the mirror in the morning. I'm glad I turned down the R1 TT.