- Ensuring open access to research
- Committing to long-term, foundational research
- Prioritizing high-quality teaching and mentorship
- Embracing diverse viewpoints
- Questioning established academic orthodoxy
- Focusing research on public rather than personal gain
- Openly sharing data and methodologies
- Upholding research neutrality and objectivity against external influences
Here I would respond that academics are prone to looking down on applied research, but it's also incredibly important. Think of new programming languages, new types of chips that will enable future computational workloads. New ways of using or optimizing existing technology... Or even empirical research to validate the effectiveness of current industrial practices (something people often don't do, or don't do rigorously enough).
Not all research needs to be "foundational". Not all applied research needs to happen in industry. Many academics would actually benefit from climbing down from their ivory tower more often.
As it is, a huge percentage of research happening in academic CS circles would probably call itself "foundational" but is actually very much divorced from reality and useless. Just people trying to increase their citation count with an incremental extension to some widely-accepted idea.
If you read this as having some academics embracing Flat Earth viewpoints, it is obvious this will not happen. The devil is in the details, what does "Embracing diverse viewpoints" even mean? Science usually drives to unique conclusions, not diverse interpretations. How many correct and diverse viewpoints exist about E=m*c^2 ?
what does "Embracing diverse viewpoints" even mean
There are many academics who will not entertain any viewpoint that's contrary to their own belief and agenda. They will happily share papers that support their preconceived notions, and be hostile towards anyone who questions whether these papers have merit.
Obviously I'm not in academia, but to most outsiders this is really obvious stuff.
Obviously I'm not in academia, but to most outsiders this is really obvious stuff.
But academics respond to incentives. Imagine you've spent 10 years pushing some set of conclusions based on some shaky studies you did early in your career. Do you really want people to dig deep and challenge the validity of your research?
So while the academic may not mind being proven wrong in their hypotheses/results/conclusions, they may stress about not being able to get more funding.
The GP is spouting uninformed opinions and then patting themselves on the back for being an "outsider".
BTW I have nothing to gain from 'spouting uninformed opinions'.
My opinion is mostly based on my own interactions with certain academics, and others I've had the opportunity to directly observe.
Perhaps the patterns I've seen are not universal. But that doesn't mean that they are not common or, as you seem to suggest, do not exist at all.
This sort of thread pops up again and again on HN. It's frustrating to read comment after comment of people being confidently wrong about your vocation.
There is much snark on HN about MBAs and PMs being useless. I read those comments with curiosity to understand what I might learn.
Those commenters' experience is not universal, but neither is my own. Some of the comments might be based on virtually no evidence, but that's probably not the majority.