[HN Gopher] 'Not of faculty quality': How Penn mistreated Katali... ___________________________________________________________________ 'Not of faculty quality': How Penn mistreated Katalin Kariko Author : happy-go-lucky Score : 345 points Date : 2023-10-27 16:16 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.thedp.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.thedp.com) | hodgesrm wrote: | > "I do hope that it causes Penn and a bunch of other | institutions that fund science this way to reflect a little bit | on what the chances are that some scientists who do not get | funding, and wind up leaving, end up being like Katalin Kariko," | Scales said. | | A brilliant woman scientist researching an uncool topic hits the | trifecta of resistance to her work. It's wonderful to see her | persistence vindicated but it sounds like time for a revolution | in how university research is managed. The closing quote of the | article is very disappointing. | wavemode wrote: | woman, uncool topic... is the third factor of the trifecta | "scientist"? or "brilliant"? | rawgabbit wrote: | She was admonished for speaking in her native Hungarian. | | In any organization, there are the publicized metrics and | rules. And then there are the hidden rules which are nothing | more than office politics. Do I expect UPenn to change its | behavior? I would not hold my breath. The real question is | why we hold Ivy League universities on a pedestal. | przemub wrote: | Ah yeah, the allowed kind of racism. My favourite. | kaashif wrote: | I don't think requiring everyone speak the same language | is racism, necessarily. If it's "speak English to include | everyone in work conversation" then it's fine. If it's | "don't speak Hungarian on the phone to your parents | because fuck you" then no, that's bad. | | I have worked in environments where teammates speak in | their native language (spoken by a small minority of | people at the company) and it has an exclusionary effect. | Once a team (perhaps unintentionally) begins to favour | those with the right native language, and a critical mass | of speakers is reached, it can sometimes result in mono | lingual, mono cultural teams who find it hard to hire or | retain other people. | | It really depends on the specific criticism and how it | was phrased. | skulk wrote: | The real question has a real simple answer: Ivy leagues and | equivalents are how the ruling class grooms its next | generation. We put them on a pedestal because being part of | the ruling class comes with benefits. | bell-cot wrote: | > ...but it sounds like time for a revolution in how university | research is managed. | | Agreed...but it was probably time for a revolution 50 years | ago. Suffice to say that those actively causing the problems | are very widely, deeply, and skillfully entrenched. And willing | to fight to the (metaphorical) death in defense of the current | system. | | Vs...could you tell me how numerous, skilled, and well-armed | your hoped-for revolutionary army might be? | throw_pm23 wrote: | A revolution will likely make things even worse. Once you | decide on selecting a certain trait, a thousand imposters will | pop up immediately, who superficially match all the criteria | that you wanted to select for. | raincom wrote: | This tells us that too many people chase these jobs. Maybe, | time to hire as many as possible using basic income scheme. | StableAlkyne wrote: | The people who seek professorships aren't motivated by | money, they're motivated by prestige and tenure. If they | wanted money, they'd have gone directly into the private | sector. | | But: there just aren't enough professorships to support the | amount of PhDs we mint every year. | | This is causes people to go off and postdoc for _years_ | hoping somewhere will accept them. Through a combination of | luck and skill, some get a job as a prof and go through the | tenure gauntlet. | | But for most, eventually they have to give up on their | dream and do something else - except post-docs are | underpaid, so they start off in a worse financial position | than they otherwise would. | | This has a domino effect, because those post-docs compete | for jobs with fresh PhDs who never wanted to stay in | academia anyway. | | The effect is compounded by universities increasingly | relying on adjuncts as a way to cut costs (adjunct | professors are heavily exploited, and they take the abuse | because they feel like they need to boost their resume to | get a tenured position). So, there are even fewer tenure | track positions to go around | | The only way to fix it is to either reduce the number of | PhDs awarded every year (not going to happen) or incentive | an increase in the number of professorships at | universities. | raincom wrote: | In a way, this explains why many international Ph.Ds go | back to their home countries these days to join local | universities. It is good for these countries. | waterheater wrote: | Yes, and from a purely economic standpoint, we're betting | that the handful that do stay are worth the investment of | capital and resources. | m_a_g wrote: | This article makes me wonder how many groundbreaking discoveries | are buried under academia's bureaucracy and ego battles. | andrewstuart2 wrote: | Sadly it's not just academia either. I've seen brilliant | innovative engineers get buried because they don't spend the | requisite 75% of their time managing the bureaucracy of large | orgs. | Const-me wrote: | I'm not familiar with science, but I don't believe things are | terribly bad for engineers. Brilliant innovative engineers | have a degree of control over their lives. | | If a person is unhappy about the bureaucracy of the large org | they can find another job in a startup. Or they can find a | better job in a smaller, better managed organization. Or if | they're feeling lucky, they can even start their own | business. | | If they currently hold a senior position in FAANG working on | innovative ways to sell more ads, that step will likely | involve a substantial pay cut. Still, IMO brilliant engineers | are relatively well-compensated across the whole industry. | The work they do normally generates a lot of value for the | employer. | | They should be generally fine financially even without these | millions of stock options. And they will be probably happier | working on the innovations which do something good, as | opposed to inventing models, methods, and apparatuses to | advance the ongoing enshittification of the internet. | rewmie wrote: | > I'm not familiar with science, but I don't believe things | are terribly bad for engineers. Brilliant innovative | engineers have a degree of control over their lives. | | The only fundamental difference is not between science and | engineering, but between research&academia and industry, | specifically in the number of positions available and the | competition there is to fill them. | | You mentioned startups. Basically that means create your | own position. That's way out of reach to any academic | position because no one can simply go out and create their | own research institutions. Therefore, if you want to make a | living or have a career in academia, you have to subject | yourself to their rules and processes. | finnh wrote: | That was GP's point - that things are much better for | engineers than people in academia (and perhaps science). | rewmie wrote: | I guess my point is that engineering and academia are not | independent and mutually exclusive sets. | robocat wrote: | > brilliant engineers are relatively well-compensated | across the whole industry. | | Perhaps only software in the US. I'm not sure your | brilliant mechanical or civil or electronics engineer gets | fairly compensated for their value, and even great software | engineers can get poorly paid in many countries. | | That should create an arbitrage opportunity. | throw_pm23 wrote: | But how would you solve this issue though? Once you decide that | you will value and promote people who fit the characteristics | of Kariko, a thousand impostors immediately pop up who will | match all the outward appearances of that you wanted to | promote. | waterheater wrote: | You're talking about shifting a culture, and the culture is | defined by the people. The current doctoral student mentality | will define the future of academia, and most doctoral | students are disheartened by the idea of writing grants for | their careers. So, any future cultural solution will start | with doctoral students. | | A solution which should help fix the culture is: (1) | universities significantly reduce their total number of | incoming doctoral students for the next twenty years, (2) | universities immediately pay the existing doctoral students | better, and (3) universities explicitly select for doctoral | students interested in an academic career. Of course, this | approach has financial risk for the university, so the | political cost of implementation may be too steep for some. | | However, this approach should, in the long run, create a | positive outlook for doctoral students, ensure that the | average quality of doctoral students is higher, and reduce | the amount of doctoral "slave labor" which is heavily | exploited to support the grant-seeking paradigm (not | exaggerating; I know a doctoral student who was required to | be in the lab whenever the PI was, which was often 10 hours a | day, sometimes 7 days a week). | OfSanguineFire wrote: | In some European countries, PhD students are paid a salary | equivalent to a middle-class income in that country, and | PhD slots are already few. Nevertheless, even there there | is the same grant culture that everyone is complaining | about here. I don't see how the three things you propose | would fix things. | omginternets wrote: | I'd go out on a limb to say "likely many", especially since | this is a rather new phenomenon. This is yet another example of | bean-counters being at the helm: in their pursuit for | productivity (narrowly defined as "impact factor"), they have | undermined the very conditions that favor meaningful discovery. | These essentially boil down to: the ability for research | faculty to make long-term, risky bets. | | What the bean-counter class can't seem to understand is that | researchers are motivated to make big discoveries, so you can | actually trust them to be judicious in their use of resources. | bluGill wrote: | > What the bean-counter class can't seem to understand is | that researchers are motivated to make big discoveries, so | you can actually trust them to be judicious in their use of | resources. | | What you don't seem to understand is there are some who are | not motivated by that. | | Note that I make no claims as to how many are | honest/dishonest. This is a valid thing that "bean counters" | often miss. | omginternets wrote: | >What you don't seem to understand is there are some who | are not motivated by that. | | Yes, and the classical solution was to deny those people | tenure. The system worked pretty well, for a large | institutional system, until roughly the early 90's. | | What we have now is an impossibly high standard that | prevents well-motivated researchers from accomplishing the | very goals that the institution is meant to serve. | | Edit: now do me a favor and analyze whether university | administrators have a track-record of using funds with | prudence. | cycomanic wrote: | This is argument is at the center of much of the | administrative bloat. It is the same if we consider the | arguments around UBI, free public transport etc. | | Essentially we have created huge administrative bodies to | check that nobody is taking advantage of the system, | without any cost benefit analysis. We often now spend | similar amounts on checking as we are on running the system | itself. Maybe we should just acknowledge that some people | will always take advantage of the system, and that's just | the cost of "doing business". | geodel wrote: | Well, there are bunch of other "cost of doing business" | like bribing politicians or govt officials to get work | done, expense on lobbying, paying fine rather than doing | right thing by businesses and so on. I don't see people | at large take this as just a cost of doing business and | not something to be fixed by setting up and enforcing | rules. | omginternets wrote: | You're comparing lazy researchers in universities with | corruption in government. If you don't see the obvious | differences in nature and consequence, I'm really not | sure what to tell you. | | But in case it needs to be said, yeah, we should probably | maintain _some_ reasonably-effective process for weeding | out unproductive researchers. Again, we had one that wasn | 't too bad long before the bean-counters ruined research. | spamizbad wrote: | Academia makes what it measures (papers that get cited). You do | not need brilliant minds to do this kind of work: you just need | hard-working, highly motivated "midwits" and you can pay them | accordingly. | tverbeure wrote: | It's not just academia. A friend of mine was involved in the | development of a ground breaking medicine for a pretty common | incurable disease. The results of the first and second round | trials were fantastic, giving a significant number of patients | a normal quality of life that they hadn't experienced in years. | | The formula was sold to a big pharma company that completely | botched the third round trial. It's not that harmful side | effects were discovered, but due to a bad testing methodology, | the results were not nearly as good as they were. The big | pharma company recognized the issue, but a revised third round | trial would delay the introduction by years, at which time the | amount of profits to make from the medicine were considered too | low due to patent expiration. So they just dropped it | altogether. | | It would be too uneconomical for a new company to kickstart the | whole approval process again: as soon as the patents expire, | other companies would immediately release their generic | variant. | | End result: millions of potential carriers of the disease won't | see the benefit of a medicine that has been shown to work. | mjburgess wrote: | I think you're overgenealising a bit here. There are | significant incentives on the pharam company to get it right, | but they didnt. In a sense, life happens -- it seems this is | an accident. | | Whereas the issue here is that against any reasonable | objective of publicly research, academia has | institutionalised a series of dysfunctional incentives. | | ie., the "Accident" is the norm | noobermin wrote: | Is there any recourse? Like can the research group claw back | the IP and give it to another company? | ForkMeOnTinder wrote: | It would be a shame if the formula were to "leak" | accidentally, resulting in commercialization taking place | in another country with looser IP laws, and saving | thousands of people's lives in the process. | water-data-dude wrote: | I think that what they're saying is that no one would pay | for the expensive trials and approval process, since they | wouldn't have enough time to make their money back from | it. So even if it were leaked, it still wouldn't get | produced. | wolf550e wrote: | There is a patent, the formula is not secret. Someone | needs to pay for the work to get it approved by the FDA. | tverbeure wrote: | I thought that the formula was not secret, but that's | actually not the case: apparently, patents like this are | written so that they cover a whole class of molecules | without specifying exactly which one, or something of | that sort. (I forgot the details.) | josephcsible wrote: | Why is it legal for patents to be like that? Wasn't the | premise of them supposed to be "we'll fully disclose the | details of this thing in exchange for a temporary | monopoly on making it"? | tverbeure wrote: | It was given back to the original developer. But nobody is | willing to invest in getting it to market. | | This is a case where a non-profit would be useful. | waterheater wrote: | On this subject, I recommend the book "Vitamin C and Cancer: | Medicine or Politics?" by Evelleen Richards. Pharmaceutical | companies have no intrinsic motivation to provide (1) cures | at (2) a price one could purchase without health insurance. | derbOac wrote: | A complementary story to the one about Kariko is one about a | researcher in Texas who, prior to the pandemic, kept getting | his grant proposals for a coronavirus vaccine denied because | "no one cares about coronaviruses". | | I'd link to articles about it but right now searching for | anything having to do with Texas, coronavirus, and vaccine, is | buried in articles about Texas vaccine politics. | | But you're right -- Kariko's story is textbook, prototypical, | and its strength is its greatest weakness, that it's almost | abnormally illuminated. We never know about all the other | stories out there that aren't lucky enough to be exposed so | clearly. | strangattractor wrote: | I've been in rooms with Academics with egos so big it displaces | enough oxygen to make it stifling. No one will challenge their | behavior because it may affect their career. IMHO it is the due | to the culture of Academia which is often win lose and credit | based. This eventually leads to unethical behavior in some | cases - falsification of data, theft of ideas and believe it or | not sabotage. Any type or advancement is almost strictly based | on what you can take credit for doing. | | There is no Nobel for people that run labs that produce the | next 10 Nobel winners other than themselves. | waterheater wrote: | I suspect myriad. Academic politics is messier than real-world | politics. In the Dark Triad personality classification, | Machiavellianism should be a job requirement for professors if | they are to succeed in such a twisted climate (and, as it turns | out, many meet that requirement). Bear in mind that academics | are better at generalized problem solving than most people, so | their attempts to find viable solutions to complex political | problems tend to be either elaborate or manipulative. | | Good people do exist in academia, but most of them have | retired, and the rest put up with it. I have a general belief | that, unlike the majority of careers, being a successful | academic (and I can't underscore "academic" enough) requires a | strong moral compass, historically oriented toward a "Divine | Light of Truth" or God, which ever floats your boat. Such is | not required in a grant-seeking paradigm. | AlbertCory wrote: | I was at a talk at 3Com by an MIT professor that Metcalfe | knew. He made the old joke that "academic politics are so | vicious because nothing's at stake." | | The prof said, "that depends on whether you consider | reputation 'nothing'. " | | So there you have your reason: _anyone_ whose livelihood | depends solely on the good opinion of others is likely to | have low moral standards. | rewmie wrote: | > This article makes me wonder how many groundbreaking | discoveries are buried under academia's bureaucracy and ego | battles. | | I don't think this problem is exclusive of academia. Anyone in | the job market has war stories about ridiculous hiring | processes that reject candidates for the most pathetic reasons. | geodel wrote: | IMO there is nothing to wonder as it is part of everything in | life. Brilliant candidates not getting job, brilliant students | not getting thru school/college admissions, brilliant players | not getting into school/college/professional teams of choice | and so on. | | Having always a suitable opportunity for someone's skillset is | impossible. | ilaksh wrote: | So what are the repercussions for the admins who misjudged or | mistreated her? If there aren't sufficient changes then maybe | groups should move their funding out of Penn. | smath wrote: | This was my immediate thought too. We need perhaps a long lived | website that captures misjudgement on the part of people in | power and update their scores over a long period of time. A | kind of public record, ledger. A kind of wikipedia, but | simplified only to record +1s, -1s against their name, and the | reason for it. | myth_drannon wrote: | UPenn is in the news again. Something tells me the fish stinks | from the head. | kogus wrote: | Your comment made me curious to look up their leadership page. | As of this post, Katalin Kariko is featured very prominently on | the president's page, above even the president herself. That's | a pretty big mea culpa. | | https://president.upenn.edu/ | frostburg wrote: | That's just taking undue credit. | bell-cot wrote: | It's not a mea culpa if there is no sign at all of them | admitting that they f*cked up. | ahoka wrote: | Pharisees. | drno123 wrote: | If there wasn't COVID pandemic, and mRNA vaccines did not become | widely used for another decade, ms Kariko would never get the | deserved recognition. | edent wrote: | _Ms_? | malcolmgreaves wrote: | * Dr. Kariko | Almondsetat wrote: | are we in the 1700s? being a PhD does not mean I have to use | your honorific every time you are mentioned | Invictus0 wrote: | female version of the napoleon complex | bitzun wrote: | When someone is a PhD, and you know this, and you choose to | use ms/mr/mrs instead of dr (or omitting an honorific | altogether, the most common, unobjectionable choice), it | can easily be interpreted as condescension. | Beijinger wrote: | Dude, PhDs give a fuck about PhDs. At least in the | States. I would find it odd to be addresses this way. | When I addressed my phd supervisor the first time with | professor doctor XYZ, he just said, I am Bill. My name is | Bill! | neuronerdgirl wrote: | Also like the one time you most typically use the Dr | honorific is specifically when you are speaking about the | person in reference to their profession. | Eumenes wrote: | How do you know if someone is a PhD? They'll tell you. | gustavus wrote: | Just a reminder Einstien who was the most revolutionary scientist | since Newton was unable to secure a teaching position prior to | publishing 3 nobel prize worthy papers in 1 year. Why do we think | academia has suddenly magically changed? | bee_rider wrote: | Was he a good teacher? | staunton wrote: | Maybe that should play a role for getting university | "teaching" positions but it doesn't. Neither did it play a | role for Einstein. | ModernMech wrote: | Being a good teacher absolutely plays a role in teaching | positions. Source: I work in such a teaching position and | have served on several search committees. | karaterobot wrote: | To be fair, he wrote those papers _after_ not getting a job as | a professor. He graduated in 1900, applied for teaching | positions for two years after that, and then had his _annus | mirabilis_ in 1905, that 's when he wrote the papers you're | referring to. After that, he then applied again, and had a | teaching position in 1908, then a full professorship in 1911. | So, it's not that people looked at three Nobel-prize caliber | discoveries, and said "you're not faculty quality, Mr. | Einstein" | Invictus0 wrote: | > unable to secure a teaching position *prior* to publishing | 3 nobel prize worthy papers in 1 year | karaterobot wrote: | Next time I apply for a job, I'll write "Someday, I'm going | to publish 3 papers that change how we understand physics" | and I'm sure they'll hire me. Who wouldn't? | bell-cot wrote: | Well...yes. Treating the actual high-value workers like sh*t has | been American Academia's SOP for how many years now? | wrycoder wrote: | I read yesterday that there are now more administrators than | students at Harvard, but 'only' one third as many teachers as | students. | bell-cot wrote: | Yep. And Harvard is _anything_ but alone in that respect. | vkou wrote: | Harvard is at 19,000 employees for 23,000 students - but I'd | be surprised if most of the employees are administrators, as | this includes the plumbers, the janitors, the gardeners, the | campus cops, the cooks, etc, etc. | | My, uh, no-name school somehow managed to educate ~37,000 | students with a 'mere' 7,200 employees (half of them part- | time). | rtkwe wrote: | Did you school have much of a research arm? That's where | you can get a lot of mismatch between the ratios because | you have whole cadres of people who don't teach anyone at | all or teach a few small classes because their jobs are | research focused. | jjk166 wrote: | My alma mater, which is a research university, last year | had 8000 employees for 12000 students (6000 undergrad, | 6000 grad), of whom 1200 were faculty and 3000 were | staff. Of the staff about 1000 were in administration- | related roles (management ~200, business operations~500, | office support ~300). There are about 500 dedicated | research staff, which includes post-docs, research | associates, and non-teaching research faculty. Research | staff is the largest single employee category for the | staff. | queuebert wrote: | Academia does not value quality, but quantity. It selects for | scientists who are the best at marketing and networking, not | necessarily doing quality science, though they can also be. | | I have no idea how to fix this, but competition needs to be | reduced, probably by more guaranteed funding for positions, not | just projects, as grants are. This latest military aid package is | 2x the entire NIH budget, so surely there is more money for | science out there. | ska wrote: | It's not really quality vs quantity. | | The root problem is that (particularly in R1's) the job of | raising money to perform the science has devolved somewhat to | the level of individual labs and PI's, which creates an | incentive that rewards good fundraisers in a much more | predictable way than good researchers. In theory this could be | addressed by more rigor in the funding agencies review | processes, but they aren't resourced to really handle that. | | It's like a baby (both in size and impact) version of the | problem in US Congress & Senate. | michaelrpeskin wrote: | But it's even worse than that. Since universities are funded | by the grant overhead (30-40% of the grant goes directly to | the university, sometimes higher), there's an incentive for | "expensive" research. Why fund a theorist who needs a pencil | and paper and maybe a fancy computer when you can fund an | expensive lab full of state of the art lasers and optics or | any other type of expensive technology. Do you want to come | up with a ground breaking theory or do you want to turn the | crank and measure some value a little more precise? There is | value in both, but the universities really bias towards the | latter because it's more expensive and needs more and bigger | grants to get done. | ska wrote: | Not really, at least in my experience. Overhead is | fungible, so they get roughly the same cut of everything | that comes in (to a first approximation). | | That means the _support_ the institution will put behind a | shoot-for-the-stars research centre grant is way different | than what a theorist looking to pay for 5 grad students | will get, but the institution is happy to proportionately | support that as well. Especially R1 's that are trying to | play the prestige game aggressively, they'll push for a | "world class" faculty page pretty much across the board. | But they don't all get the same offices. | | Institutions' reliance on overhead to fund operations | varies wildly as well, which makes the calculus different. | ska wrote: | Oh I should note that capex and opex aren't treated the | same in grant-land either, and funding agencies can put | limits on university overhead for infrastructure grants | etc. so that's not all apples to apples. | | The benefit to the university for soft salary or funding | grad students etc. in both scenarios is the same, but | getting money for a new computer cluster or a synchrotron | or whatever isn't, typically. | queuebert wrote: | The overhead rate for R1s is closer to 70%. | cycomanic wrote: | It's more likely the other way around. For most grants I'm | aware off universities can't charge overheads on equipment | so a theoretician with lots of phd students brings in more | overhead than an experimentalist that needs lots of | equipment. Obviously the reality is much more complex, | depending on country it's easier or more difficult to get | funding as a theoretician (in the US it's supposedly much | more difficult), theory groups are typically smaller, | experimental research often results in more publicity... | And all this really depends on the field. | | I think pitting theory against experiments does not address | the issues. The big problem IMO is that the funding systems | are so competitive and at the same time (initially) have a | large luck component, that it incentives short term, low | risk research. | Djle wrote: | This is more of a Thomas Kuhn moment than anything else, where | the mainstream doesn't accept new theories that will upend | their own work. | test77777 wrote: | I think the opposite, we need more raw labor aimed at | replicating scientific results. Today our institutions are so | tiny they can hardly afford what few projects are funded to | completion. | StableAlkyne wrote: | Part of it is that research grants are not used fully as a | research funding source - a typical university administration | will skim about a quarter of every grant for "administrative | costs." It's not called out as corruption because it's the | norm, but it does have the effect of reducing the amount of | tax-funded R&D dollars that actually make it to R&D | | As a result, the people in charge of hiring and firing have a | self-preserving interest to value grant-earners | | It'll never happen, but if funding agencies like the NSF or NIH | put strings on the funding like "100% must go to the PI awarded | this grant" with accounting requirements, it would help remove | some of the financial incentive. | | It would also help lower some of the pressure to publish or | perish, since a lot of that comes from the need to chase | grants. | ccooffee wrote: | > It'll never happen, but if funding agencies like the NSF or | NIH put strings on the funding like "100% must go to the PI | awarded this grant" with accounting requirements, it would | help remove some of the financial incentive. | | From what I've seen in very limited searches, universities | claim that the 30-60% overhead/administrative costs are to | account for things like employee benefits, utility costs, | building maintenance, and the like. The stated money pits all | make sense to me, but I don't see how it actually comes up to | those numbers. | | Do you know if these costs are ever itemized by universities? | That's probably a necessary first step before NSF/NIH would | consider a rule to avoid paying opaque overhead costs. | (Though I fear it would lead to absurd equipment rental fees | or something of the sort. "You want to use a test tube? $3 | per day per tube!") | StableAlkyne wrote: | I don't know how much accounting is done on the university | side to itemize research bills. What my advisor told me was | when I was going through the ringer was that once you have | the money, it's yours - you can do whatever you want with | it short of embezzlement. All that matters is you make | progress on the thing the funding agency granted you the | money for, doesn't matter if you ran over budget or spent | $100. | Etheryte wrote: | While I see where you're coming from, I'm very conflicted on | your approach to address this. I don't think throwing more | money at the problem fixes the underlying issues, if anything, | I would expect them to deepen. There was an article making the | rounds some time ago on HN how something like three quarters of | medical studies had either strong data analysis errors in them | or had complete bogus data, to the point where it was | impossible to tell whether the results had any grain of truth | to them. That's an absurd ratio, and not something I would want | to fund. | queuebert wrote: | If the desire to inflate results comes from the intense | competition, not incompetence, then more money would fix it. | The fact that the top universities are suffering big fake | research scandals would bolster this. Personally I've known | many competent scientists who left for greener pastures not | because they couldn't cut it but because they wanted higher | pay and less stress. | cycomanic wrote: | I think this attitude is actually a big part of the problem. | Because research is largely government funded there is big | political pressure to show that the research leads to | measurable outcomes and that there is zero misuse or waste of | funding. This is what has lead to the current system of big | administrative bodies just focused on tracking how funding is | used (and we can't really blame universities for the | situation, reporting requirements on everything they do have | increased dramatically). | | On the other hand nobody cares about the waste in private | industry, we are perfectly fine with paying a certain amount | for e.g. a Facebook ad even though they just wasted a huge | amount of money on a big VR bet.. Maybe we should just admit | that there will be wastage and we can't easily measure | scientific outcomes and just say we are happy with the | overall benefit we get from science/academia for the price we | pay for it (which in the broad picture is quite small). | antognini wrote: | My dad was a professor and would joke that the way a tenure | committee made their decision was that they'd print out all | your papers, put them in a folder, and then throw it down a | stairwell. If your packet made it to the bottom, it would be an | easy yes. If it made it halfway down it would be marginal. If | it only made it down a few steps it would be a definite no. | | There's also the old aphorism that tenure committees can't | read, but they can count. | RecycledEle wrote: | I wish every disagreement was logged in a system so that, decades | later, we could know who was right and who was wrong. | | It would tell us who to listen to and who yo shun. | | I had hopes that Internet forums would be that record, but the | nukers destroyed that. | shepherdjerred wrote: | That sounds incredibly dystopian. | bjornsing wrote: | If you're very sure of yourself and typically wrong, then | yes. But to me the current situation is quite dystopian. | kps wrote: | Physics Nobel winner Peter Higgs (of the boson) said the same ten | years ago: "Today I wouldn't get an academic job. It's as simple | as that. I don't think I would be regarded as productive enough." | | https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-... | RecycledEle wrote: | I wish we had a way to see whether someone was right or wrong in | the past so we can judge their decision making abilities. This | would help us pick good leaders. | | If only there were a way to document disagreements publicly so | they could be reviewed at a later date. | | I had hopes that Internet discussion forums would be that, but | the nukers destroyed that along with most training materials for | LLMs. | renewiltord wrote: | This is a good outcome. Ideally, star researchers are expunged | from academia where good ideas go to die and they're moved to | industry where success depends on their work working. | anonymousDan wrote: | Rolls eyes. | thelittlenag wrote: | My wife was hired last year as a full time professor and leads | her own lab. By far the largest pressure on new faculty is the | ability to get money into her lab, and by extension the | university since they take a very hefty cut (50-100%! btw this | doubles the "cost" of the grant, it doesn't lessen the amount the | professor gets). Getting approved for the money via the grant | process means having published "interesting" research along | avenues of inquiry that other folks find worth pursuing. Often | times this means building on existing lines of research over | pursuing new paths. | | The hiring process is setup basically to filter for folks who | they think are the most likely to publish lots of papers, | collaborate to push existing lines of inquiry, write lots of | hopefully approved grants, and grow a lab into what is | effectively a "successful small business". Quality is an after | thought taken care of by what passes for peer review. | | The incentives for everyone involved is just a complete and total | mess. I'm reading tea leaves here, but my guess as to why she was | never hired is that she was deemed "unable to get grants". Had | she been, then she would have found herself hired immediately | somewhere because universities are incentivized to play a numbers | game and get as many folks in writing grants as possible. | IshKebab wrote: | Definitely the case. A Nobel prize comes from one great | discovery. An academic career comes from ongoing successful | grant applications. | Kye wrote: | Was it always like this or headed here? I'm curious if flat | government funding for research against rising costs creates or | amplifies counterproductive incentives. | godelski wrote: | A little of both. The problem is that evaluation of research | work is insanely difficult. A lot of people think it's easy | because "the world is objective, it either works or doesn't" | but research is cutting edge and you're only chipping away at | a much larger picture. It can take decades for a work to | reveal itself as truly profound or utter shit. The problem, | which I rant about in a longer comment, is that instead of | acknowledging the noise we've embraced poor metrics and | encouraged the hacking of those metrics. I call this | Goodhart's Hell. People forget, metrics are models and all | models are wrong. You have to constantly be questioning your | metrics and determine how well aligned they are with your | goals or else you'll drift (the environment moves, so your | metric must move too). | | I think actually the better way to solve this, which may seem | paradoxical, is to actually increase funding. Not in size of | single prizes for grants (well... we need that too, but | that's another discussion), but in the availability. The | reason being that the hacking is partially encouraged by the | competition for a very scarce resource. A resource that | compounds. Due to this (and some nuances, see other post) | we're not actually rewarding those who perform the best work | (we may actually be discouraging that) but those who become | lucky. A "good work" is simply one with high citation counts, | which is heavily weighted on the publicity around that work. | Which is why top universities have big media departments, pay | news publishers to advertise their works, and why survey | papers generate huge counts. | | The problem is that the system is rather complex and there | are no simple or "obvious" solutions. "Good enough" is also | not clear because too low order of an approximation can | actually take you away from your intended goals, not a small | step towards as one might think. | WalterBright wrote: | Any source of funding will spawn an industry designed | around extracting every dollar from it. | godelski wrote: | Exactly. Or equally: money can only exchange hands by | means of a leaky bucket. But I'd say that it's not a big | problem that the bucket is leaky. Goodhart's Hell is when | that extraction industry dominates or that bucket isn't | so much leaky as it is missing the bottom which | differentiates it from a tube. Some people call this peak | capitalism and it's right to complain, but I think this | happens in whatever system you use, just exhibits itself | in whatever metric dominates (in our case | capital/dollars. Also typically capital/dollars in | communism too because both systems are explicitly about | capital -\\_(tsu)_/-). | raincom wrote: | Your wife is on tenure-track and Kariko was on a lower track | designed for postdocs, researchers, leading to research | assistant/associate professor, etc. Kariko was treated badly on | the track she was on----a track that doesn't require stringent | filtering. So your comment is not that relevant. | exmadscientist wrote: | > the university since they take a very hefty cut (50-100%! btw | this doubles the "cost" of the grant, it doesn't lessen the | amount the professor gets) | | Don't forget that this is actually money laundering. Our NIH | grants had major strings attached, like "you may not buy non- | instrumentation computers" (at least, that's what I was told, I | did not actually get to read the grants). So the University | helpfully launders the money for you through a kickback from | its overhead cut, at the tiny tiny price of keeping most of it. | You may then spend the kickbacks without restriction. | | The whole system is insane. Even having lived it for years I | barely believe some of my own stories. | mjburgess wrote: | What amuses, and irritates, me is that academics frequently | project this insanity onto Business or The Profit Motive. | | Having close connections in academia, that world is the worst | of what can be imagined. A highly competitive start-up, or | scale-up, environment has a level of Reason and Merit imposed | by the market which rationalises most everything (even the | insane VC fantasyland headline-driven stuff is intelligible). | | Academia is the worst combination of every imaginable macro | force. | quacked wrote: | I don't know if I'd agree that Reason and Merit are always | applied by the market, unless the market is referring to | "whatever VCs can be convinced to give money to". However, | the crux of what you're saying, which is that in academia | Reason and Merit are thrown directly out of the window is | completely true. | | My favorite discrepancy is in hiring. In startups, you can | win a $150k/year job in a ten minute conversation with the | right person and be at work the following Monday, even that | afternoon in some cases. This is especially true if your | previous work is already known to the person doing the | hiring. | | In academia (and to a lesser extent government work) | they're conducting 6-month searches and stringing along | candidates for months at a time for $65k jobs with a | fraction of the responsibility of the equivalent in the | private industry. | mjburgess wrote: | In the medium term, on average, the market tends to kill- | off sheer stupidity. It is kinda traumatic in the short- | term to see how much stupidity is rewarded, of course. | (And here, are VCs anything more than serial idiots?) | | But if you really want to persue a basically competent | merit-based path, there's usually one available. You can | make 2x in a crypto conjob, or 1x on a gamble that | someone needs a plausible value-adding service. | | I just don't see this logic at work in academia. The only | reason I care here is how often academics have a kind of | superstition of 'business' which is nothing other than a | description of their own situation. When, in reality, | freedoom from these chronic stupidities lies in | everything they claim to hate. | jltsiren wrote: | Academic hiring processes are ridiculous. Not because | anyone wants it that way but because citizens like to | complain. They complain when they think tax/tuition money | is being used for inapproriate or frivolous purposes. | They complain when they see nepotism and corruption. They | complain about perceived political biases and | discrimination. And so on. | | Every time something goes wrong badly enough to cause a | scandal, new processes are put in place to prevent that | specific harm in the future. On the other hand, nobody | really cares about effective and efficient use of tax | money. People surely complain about waste, but the | complaints are rarely specific enough to have | consequences. Given a choice between preventing a | specific harm and using tax money better, people almost | always choose preventing the specific harm. | | The salaries are what they are, because universities | can't afford to pay more. There is only so much | tax/tuition money available to them. People like to | complain about administrative bloat, but it's their fault | really. Every time people complain about something | specific in the academia, they are advocating for giving | more money to the administration to fix that, and for | giving less money to the people who teach and do | research. That's just the way public management works. | | Additionally, academic hiring processes are more involved | than in the industry, because there is less | responsibility. Not despite it. People are effectively | given money to do things they would do anyway, and the | employer often can't tell the difference between a good | hire and a bad hire, except maybe much later. If you | can't fix you mistakes in a timely manner, you'll | probably want to think things through before making the | decision. | rmah wrote: | Universities could afford to pay more if they redirect | funds from paying for "administrator" to paying for | instructors and researchers. Or diverting funds from | beautification projects. Or from the mass of consulting | firms they hire for various things. There is now an | average of only 2.5 faculty per administrator at | universities and many of the better research universities | have ratios closer to 1:1. Really, it's a question of | incentives and priorities. | bluGill wrote: | They can't do that though. All those administrators are | preventing the faculty from abusing their position. Most | of the abuse are the type of thing that someone has done | in the past. What you really seem to be claiming is that | the loss from faculty abuse is in general less than the | costs of those administrators. I'm not sure if this is | true or not - this is the real debate that we are not | having. (I'm sure in some cases it is true, but in others | it is not) | | As for beautification projects: that projects often bring | in big donars. It is hard to say if they are worth the | costs or not, but we need to start by being clear. A ugly | brutalist building would be a lot cheaper but probably is | too far the other way. | KennyBlanken wrote: | So, if you're complaining about this in an HN comment, that | means you reported it to the NIH, right? Because "kickbacks" | are not a common thing, friend. | lostlogin wrote: | You don't think so? | | It sounds like something that would happen. Where I was | there were complex arrangements to avoid breaking grant | rules while also spending every last cent. | exmadscientist wrote: | This behavior is known to all parties. It's openly | advertised and discussed by the admin office people. | justin66 wrote: | > Because "kickbacks" are not a common thing, friend. | | _cue the audience laughter_ | stavros wrote: | I don't understand this comment. So basically, I have a bunch | of dirty money, I give it to a university, who then use all | of it to buy a bunch of stuff that my own company sells, thus | cleaning the money? So basically what I've done is I've given | away $X million of stuff, and my company gets its 5% margin | out of it? | | This makes zero sense to me. | exmadscientist wrote: | They are removing conditions ("strings") from federal grant | money and simultaneously taking a large cut to fund the | university's general operations. | | They are not laundering general money, they are doing a | very specific thing here. | stavros wrote: | Hm, I guess I just don't know enough about how grants | work to understand what's going on. | HansHamster wrote: | The grant has restrictions on how the money can be used | and the university takes a sizeable chunk of this | (because they can). Then out of generosity and the pure | kindness of their heart they might give you back a small | chunk of that sum without the same restrictions. | johnvaluk wrote: | This isn't fair. Researchers put an extraordinary burden | on administration in an academic institution. Research by | its very nature is cutting edge and is always testing | limits. "I want it now!" ignores existing streamlined | processes and administration often provides value by | enforcing compliance. This kind of oversight also | minimizes a lot of abuse. | vineyardmike wrote: | It's not laundering money in the criminal sense, it's | just removing restrictions and contractual limitations. | | If I'm a grant giver, I want my money to go towards the | consumables of research, not fund CapEx that can be used | for someone else's research. If I'm a lab, I want/need | fancy and reusable equipment, which is excluded in the | grant terms. | | Some of the grant money goes to "university | administration" (pick your term) because the university | gets a cut. The university administration pays salaries, | endowments, whatever with that money. They also buy that | durable equipment that was excluded in the contract from | their "general fund", washing the connection to the | original grant. | stavros wrote: | Ahh I see what you mean, thanks for explaining. | burnished wrote: | I'm not an expert so a pinch of salt is warranted but: | | When you give some one money with legally recognized | conditions then the organization has to honor those | conditions. e.g donate money to a charity and tell them | that it is to be used purchasing pens then that is all | that money can be used for. | | So if I understand correctly the 'scheme' here is that | Lab A applies for and receives a grant that has | stipulation X. As part of this process a portion of that | grant goes to the hosting university without that | stipulation. The university is free to spend that money | however they wish, including providing some funds to Lab | A for things that they really need but were not provided | for under the grant. | CamperBob2 wrote: | _Our NIH grants had major strings attached, like "you may not | buy non-instrumentation computers" (at least, that's what I | was told, I did not actually get to read the grants)_ | | Sadly, that bit of goofiness goes back a long way. It's why | the early HP desktops were sold as "calculators." Many | important customers told them that buying a computer required | approval from the board of directors, but anybody could buy a | "calculator" out of petty cash. | mattkrause wrote: | It's also not actually true. | | The NIH themselves is fine with you buying computers that | directly support the "aims" of the grant (e.g., data | analysis). They don't want you buying "general" office | equipment off a grant. | | However, most universities are touchy about this and | default-deny all computer purchases unless you yell the | chapter and verse of the regs at them (which I have now | done several times). | CamperBob2 wrote: | Yep, I'm referring to a historical anecdote, not current | practice. | | It'll be tough to dig up a solid citation for the HP | "calculator" story but I've heard it from more than one | reasonably-credible source, e.g.: https://retrocomputing. | stackexchange.com/questions/9499/when... and | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett- | Packard_9100A#cite_not... . | kps wrote: | I've heard the same about the DEC PDP branding -- a | "Programmable Data Processor" could slip through where a | "computer" couldn't. | mananaysiempre wrote: | "Inside the AS/400" by Soltis quotes a story of IBM's | Rochester group developing the System/3 minicomputer | (followed by the incompatible System/38, later rebranded | the AS/400 and later still the i) under the guise of an | "accounting machine". | mattkrause wrote: | Oh, I totally believe it! | | I just wanted to explain that although "No computers on | NIH grants" is _still_ current practice at most | universities, it shouldn 't be. | dctoedt wrote: | Aboard the USS Enterprise (the aircraft carrier) in the | late 1970s, I automated some of my division's reports by | writing BASIC programs on a "programmable calculator" -- a | desktop in all but name -- that was owned by the air wing | (IIRC) and used for setting up missions. | | (It was a day of celebration when the 8K of RAM was | upgraded to 16K.) | godelski wrote: | > Don't forget that this is actually money laundering. | | For anyone questioning this line, let's remember a few things | | - Graduate students (in this setting) are typically funded, | so the cost of their credits (often higher than undergrads) | are determined by the university and such costs are a major | factor of what is taken out of the grant the professor gets | their portion (sometimes after the uni's cut!). The rest then | goes to the student's salary and hopefully some left over for | new lab equipment. | | - Grant money must all be used and cannot be put aside for | future investments. It is better to buy shitty lab equipment | because you don't have enough for good equipment and can't | invest any excess (even if by being spartan elsewhere). If | you don't use the money in the allotted timeframe you're | considered to have improperly managed the funding. | | - A funded graduate student is considered 49% employee and | 51% student. | | - Graduate students in year 3+ (median 5 years for PhD) are | not taking courses and doing full time research and likely | being a TA at the same time. (Tuition costs do not change) | | - A successful graduate student sees their advisor less and | less as they dive into their niche area of research where the | advisor no longer has any level of expertise. (This is what's | supposed to happen) | | - When a graduate student stops taking classes they still pay | for credits and at the same rate (albeit through funding, | which they are often writing for at this point. But prof gets | the award). | | - Universities pay students and professors to publish papers | and judge success by publication in venues | | - Students and professors "judge" works submitted to venues | by other students and professors for no pay (i.e. on | university time) | | - Venues take copyright ownership over works they deem | valuable and put it behind a paywall | | - Universities pay for access to venues where their | researchers published in and where their researchers | performed volunteer service for. | | - Promotions are given to those who's name is on the most | works, regardless of position or contribution to that work. | | Think about it this way, what if we framed this as a job? | Your job considers you a junior part time employee for the | first 5 years and if you don't complete all 5 years every | other job will treat you as a junior part timer. Your first | two years 50% of your time is spent doing training, 50% of | your time is spent teaching the interns (who pay, but who | spend 100% of their day training), and whatever time you have | left is spent performing research. You're told you're a part | time employee because 51% of your time is training. After two | years you finish training but get no change in pay (maybe | +$100/mo), nor graduate to a full time employee. By year 4 | your manager never shows up except few months your manager | comes around telling you that you need to make sure to make a | deadline and they need to read your report first. They demand | it is in their hands a week early so they can review it. 3am | the night before the deadline they ask for major rewrites, | this is the first you've heard of any problems. 10 minutes | past the deadline you're still getting requests to "modify | the graphic" with instructions like "a little to the left" or | "I don't like the colors" and the iterative process can only | be performed by back and forth submissions with random delays | as your manager won't touch the source code. Every few months | your manager stops by to check on progress and ask you to | write a report that needs to be written by tomorrow. They'll | slap their name at the top and if successful they advance | their career. Your reward is via proxy. After 5 years, you | write a large report about what you did the last 5 years | filled with stuff you've mostly done over the last 18 months | and pretend that you had a plan all along. If they approve, | they usually do (but will ask for changes), you can go be a | manager if you're lucky or get a full time position. Or if | you go the post-doc route, 75% employee. | | Idk, this sum it up pretty well? Anyone want to add anything? | jacquesm wrote: | This is really painful to read. | | That whole system seems to be so ripe for disruption. | godelski wrote: | Well just know you're not alone. I hope you got out | without killing your passions. | | Fwiw, I intend to lead by example. I love researching. I | have a long term internship where I even do research | (unfortunately not closely tied to my PhD work lol). But | since I read math books and research as a hobby, I intend | to simply do what I call for (in other comments) and just | post to GitHub + Openreview + Arxiv and call it a fucking | day. I hope to get others to join me in this paradigm | shift. We all fucking rely on arxiv anyways and I'm | pretty sure more of us find works via twitter/google | scholar/semantic scholar/word of mouth more than we find | works via journal/conference listings (twitter post of | "just got accepted" counts as former, not latter). | | I'm not so sure we need "disruption" as much as we need | to just cut off the fucking leeches. The problem was | turning school into a business. Thinking that profits | align with education of students. But we have no strong | evidence that higher ranked schools produce higher | quality students, but rather only better connected ones. | | Idk, maybe the private sector can disrupt it. But they'd | have to perform a pretty similar feat, though there is a | monetary benefit. Because the world is disillusioned that | Stanford students are substantially better than Boston | College students, you can pay the BC student less. In | fact, many places do, but the issue is Stanford has a | huge fucking media arm so we don't hear about that. They | can also stop using number of papers as criteria but | rather quality of papers (i.e. use domain experts to hire | domain experts. Novel idea, I know...) | | I'm just shooting in the dark here. I'd actually like to | hear other peoples suggestions. Even if we're just | spitballing at this point (I don't think anyone has | strong solutions yet, that's okay), we just need to get | the ball rolling at this point instead of talking about | what a ball's relationship to an apple or the sour more | rounder apples that are orange. | jacquesm wrote: | I got lucky: I never went in. My family more or less | imploded in the middle of my highschool track and I went | to work instead and that put me on a faster road to a lot | of interaction with the computers of the day than school | would have given me and that led to an interesting | career. If that hadn't happened I may well have ended up | in academia and I somehow feel I dodged a bullet there | because my ideas of what university was like at the time | seem to have very much been informed by pink glasses and | meeting the occasional very interesting person who was | part of the academic world. | KennyBlanken wrote: | I'm sick of lies and misrepresentations from people who clearly | don't know what they're talking about, talking like schools are | greedily taking away poor Petey PhD's hard-earned grant money. | | First off: grants from most places factor in the administrative | overhead. That is negotiated between the school and the grant | org. For the NIH, it averages fifty percent. The | school/university is very restricted in what they can bill a | lab for; for example, I worked somewhere that we couldn't | charge for storage because that would have violated NIH's rules | on double-billing, because the storage cluster was paid for via | administrative overhead. | | Chances are when someone says "I got a $1M grant to study | bubblegum's effects on the gall bladder", they actually got $1M | _plus another $500,000._ | | Second, that money isn't being greedily stolen. That overhead | help pays for, directly or indirectly, things _like_ (notice I | said "like", because I am not an expert in the exact rules | around what can and cannot be paid for via overhead): | | * the building | | * the real estate the building sits on | | * the utilities to keep the building lit and comfortable (which | in the case of life/bio/chemistry sciences can be an _enormous_ | challenge given how much airflow lab space needs, which is | _far_ greater than office airflow...and then there 's biosafety | / chemical hoods) | | * security, both equipment and staff (which can be substantial | if the university or school does biomedical research in any | sensitive areas such as stem cells, animal research, infectious | disease, etc). This includes monitoring for equipment failure | (for example, sample storage systems often have dry contact | alarm hookups so that if they fail, security or facilities | finds out ASAP and can alert people) | | * the utilities to power equipment, such as -80 freezers (just | one of which can use more energy than a US household)...most of | us would also go pale if we saw the power bill for some physics | labs) and other "utilities" like vacuum, purified water, etc. | | * construction, maintenance, cleaning...both staff and supplies | | * grounds maintenance, everything from mowing the lawn to leaf | and snow removal | | * technology costs - telephone and networking infrastructure | and staff, server admins for everything from websites to email | to storage to computational clusters, desktop support staff | | * business administration, which includes, but is a lot more | than just, payroll/benefits/HR. Grant writing/administration is | often its own entire department, because you need people who | not only know how to submit the paperwork, but frankly, also | follow faculty around badgering them to fix or submit paperwork | on time - faculty are _incredibly lazy_ about this. | | * all the services the lab's grad students, staff, postdocs, | and faculty use and don't think anything about, like shuttle | busses, the library, and so on. | PheonixPharts wrote: | Regarding your first point, was the parent comment edited or | did you miss this part as they clearly address this issue: | | > (50-100%! btw this doubles the "cost" of the grant, it | doesn't lessen the amount the professor gets). | | Parent comment isn't making the claim that "schools are | greedily taking away poor Petey PhD's hard-earned grant | money." | | Rather bemoaning the fact that academic success (and even | entry into the field at all) is very, very closely tied to | the ability to generate revenue and more so the corollary | that _quality_ of research performed always at best takes a | back seat, or at worst becomes a liability if it gets in the | way of bringing in more money. | bachmeier wrote: | I think they were probably replying to exmadscientist, not | thelittlenag. | glitchc wrote: | Total bs, all of this. Thank you for conveniently ignoring | the major sources of revenue for a university, namely | tuition, in particular international tuition, govt. funding | and endowments. Overhead from grants is a tiny line item in | comparison on the balance sheet. | | The overhead is basically a tax on research and robs | professors of valuable resources. It only goes to pay an | ever-growing, over-bloated admin staff. This is coming from | someone who has first-hand knowledge from both sides of the | equation. | OfSanguineFire wrote: | There are countries where students are not charged tuition | (or, if tuition is charged, it is meagre) and there | overhead from grants is most definitely seen as important | revenue. | cycomanic wrote: | It's funny how you accuse others of misrepresentation but are | yourself misrepresenting. | | Regarding overheads yes they pay for some of these things, | but they also are clearly being used to prop up ever | increasing administrative bodies (whose salaries have often | grown disproportionately compared to academic staff). | | Just some examples (and they are in physics/engineering and | not the US so specifics are not directly comparable). | | Professors had to pay the their salary + overheads on the | percentage they worked on the project (those percentages | often add up to to more than 100%, while not reducing | teaching load). | | Regarding rent, one of my colleagues compared the rates to | rent in the prime location in the city centre and they were | significantly higher. This is despite the fact that the | buildings were often paid through large grants (who were | often written by academics) and land was owned by the | university. | | In another case, I know of some universities were the biggest | business unit was the real estate management unit (they were | lucky as a university with significant land in the CBD of one | of the most expensive cities in the world. In that country | the university could not charge the academics for rent | (funding rules), so instead the academics were put in the | smallest space possible because renting out was more | profitable. The money from renting also never was used for | running the university. | | Regarding paperwork, you call academics lazy. What I have | seen is that almost all systems around reporting are designed | to make life for the administrators easy, while academic time | is treated as free (as academics don't get paid overtime). As | examples, as an academic if you spend money e.g. when | travelling for a conference you have to keep the receipts to | justify spending (no issue with that). After you had to fill | out the accounting categorisation fields for every $ you | spend, scan the receipts and send the originals and the | scanned receipts plus some form that had to be filled in | online but also printed (finance couldn't print apparently) | to finance. The spending had the to be approved by at least | one other academic (head of lab, school or faculty). A friend | was made to write a statuary declaration I front of a justice | of the peace, because a $6 receipt from subway didn't say it | was a sandwich. | | For a similar example from teaching. I was responsible for | the final year projects in an engineering degree. The | university required all grades to be in the system two weeks | after end of term. Because the grade in this program depended | on a report which was handed at the end of term and all | academics were extremely busy with grading their own courses, | it was essentially impossible to collect the grades before | the deadline. What that meant is that for every student we | had to fill out a grade amendment that had several pages. | While I had admin help to fill the form, I still had to check | every page, initial the page and sign the document for >300 | students. | | Admin at university is absolutely insane and not designed | with the academics in mind. | | I'll stop this rant here, because it's already way too long, | but I just had to reply because the post above just reeks of | how many "centralised admin" seem to think of academics as a | cost centre that is lazy and doesn't do any work. At my | university I know that when there were redundancies admin | were complaining that they didn't fire the professors, | because they don't do anything anyway. | FireBeyond wrote: | A corollary to your story, from my partner who started as | Payroll at a university and now is the Accounting Manager, | reporting to the Financial Controller. | | > prop up ever increasing administrative bodies (whose | salaries have often grown disproportionately compared to | academic staff). | | Over the four years she has been there, faculty have | received 3 3-5% annual raises. Staff have received ... 1 1% | raise. | | Faculty and staff were allowed to start working remotely | where appropriate during COVID, or "expand the use of a | home office". | | Faculty got a $7,000 stipend to "set up a home office". | Staff got ... nothing. | | Faculty also lobbied for "increasing flexibility for | students" by "offering all classes all terms", regardless | of enrollment. In practice, this has lead to numerous | professors and adjuncts getting paid for teaching a class | that often has 2 or even 1 student enrolled. | | > As examples, as an academic if you spend money e.g. when | travelling for a conference you have to keep the receipts | to justify spending (no issue with that). After you had to | fill out the accounting categorisation fields for every $ | you spend, scan the receipts and send the originals and the | scanned receipts plus some form that had to be filled in | online but also printed (finance couldn't print apparently) | to finance. The spending had the to be approved by at least | one other academic (head of lab, school or faculty). A | friend was made to write a statuary declaration I front of | a justice of the peace, because a $6 receipt from subway | didn't say it was a sandwich. | | And the counter to this is how for many departments getting | hold of their company card statements is like pulling | teeth. They just try to tell Finance "just pay the bill, | thanks". And then audits find faculty paying for flights | for their partners on the university card... or first class | upgrades... or very liquid lunches. | | In fact, the university recently found themselves in a near | 8 digit budget deficit, with _every department_ | overrunning. And then faculty tried to throw Finance under | the bus - "How could this happen?" | | Finance's answer - "Because your departments generally | refuse to do purchase orders and an approval process. The | first time we hear of most of your expenses is when you | hand us an invoice and say 'we bought something, please pay | for it'". It also ignores the reality that for the most | part, Finance is a facilitator, not an arbitrator. Faculty | are adults - if they're given a budget (which they largely | come up with themselves), then stick to it. | | Things easily go both ways. | bachmeier wrote: | > Faculty got a $7,000 stipend to "set up a home office". | Staff got ... nothing. | | That's a very unusual university. I have never heard of | such a thing. During covid, it was common for faculty to | take large pay cuts, but not staff. The $7000 you mention | is less than my pay was cut. Staff were unaffected. | | > They just try to tell Finance "just pay the bill, | thanks". | | I don't believe this if you are talking about a US | university. That's just not how it works. | | > And then audits find faculty paying for flights for | their partners on the university card... or first class | upgrades... or very liquid lunches. | | That's why there's no such thing as "just pay the bill, | thanks". They don't pay without knowing what it's for. | First and foremost, they have to confirm it's legal. | After that, they have to confirm they're in compliance | with tax laws. I'm not even getting into state laws if | it's a public university and all the other potential | problems. Paying a bill without knowing what it's for | would simply never, ever happen at a US university. | FireBeyond wrote: | Without outing her university, I will add the (possible) | caveat of "private Catholic university". | | > During covid, it was common for faculty to take large | pay cuts, but not staff. | | The only real benefit to staff during COVID's early days | was in the (where else) athletics department (and this is | very much _not_ a sports school), where all the coaching | and related staff were kept on at full pay, and only | "required" on their own recognizance to "spend time | keeping up with relevant information in your field". | | > That's why there's no such thing as "just pay the bill, | thanks". They don't pay without knowing what it's for. | | The various schools thought process is " _We_ (the | school) knows the bill details, supervisor signed off, | so, Finance just needs the sum total and to send payment | ". | cycomanic wrote: | The university your partner works at sounds like non of | the universities I have worked at or heard of. | | Regarding home office, when covid hit we went to all | online teaching with a lead time of a few weeks (changing | an in person course to online teaching is not straight | forward). There was no funding for setting up the home | office and rules around covid meant that you couldn't | even deduce your office at home from taxes. | | Even when we went to hybrid teaching there was no central | support for kitting out lecture halls with | cameras/microphones etc. Academics often used some | research (or personal) funds for purchasing cameras etc. | | About flights and misuse of funds. I find it hard to | believe that people could purchase flights with their | cards at all universities I have been at you had to use | the approved travel agent for flights. Also the only | people allowed to fly business were high level | management/admin, no matter where funding was from. Also | I don't have an issue with submitting receipts, however I | don't see why I have to spend the time on scanning | receipts which I also have to send in as original. | Moreover why do I need to know freaking tax codes for a | train ticket or some lab consumables? Isn't that exactly | what finance's job is? | ilya_m wrote: | > I'm reading tea leaves here, but my guess as to why she was | never hired is that she was deemed "unable to get grants". | | Rest assured, this is exactly what happened. University | administrators have no expertise, interest, or motivation to | identify and invest in promising research direction - they | outsource this task to funding agencies. The only signal | universities are extremely skillful in reading is dollar | amounts. | | I do not necessarily criticize this setup. Think of a research | university as a start-up accelerator of sorts. Its main task is | to give resources to secure sources of funding, not provide | funds themselves. | godelski wrote: | > Quality is an after thought taken care of __by what passes | for peer review__. | | I can feel the strong disdain in these words that can only be | expressed by someone close to the academic world. I've honestly | decided to just stop using the phrase all together because it's | just a misnomer and not meaningful at this point other than a | metrics for the bureaucrats. | bachmeier wrote: | > they take a very hefty cut (50-100%! btw this doubles the | "cost" of the grant, it doesn't lessen the amount the professor | gets | | This leads to some very interesting conversations at | universities. | | "Your department doesn't bring in many grants, so we can't | grant your budget request." | | "But grants aren't revenue. They're money used to cover the | expense of doing research." | | "Yes, but they bring in overhead." | | Then when the granting agencies try to cut overhead: | | "We can't afford a cut in overhead. That money is used to cover | the cost of doing research. We'd be losing money." | cvwright wrote: | Even more baffling, there are studies showing that most US | universities actually manage to lose money on federally | funded research. | | Yes, the overhead rates are obscene, but somehow the | compliance costs are even greater. | adolph wrote: | See also _How Hollywood Studios Manage To Officially Lose | Money On Movies That Make A Billion Dollars_ | | _For example, consider the case of Winston Groom who was | promised 3% of the net profits of a film based on a little | book he wrote called Forrest Gump. As noted, Paramount | would later argue that the film, which cleared almost 13 | times its production budget, a total of $700 million at the | box office or about $1.2 billion today, had actually lost | $62 million, all in an attempt to weasel out of paying | Groom, among others._ | | https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2020/06/how- | hollywo... | mistrial9 wrote: | wikipedia EN does not make that so clear, but they do | also mention that the book itself by Winston Groom sold a | million+ more copies after the movie came out.. | | there are remarkable stories of swindling of all kinds | out of Hollywood, of course! great movie too | araes wrote: | Having tried to write a large grant recently, can slightly | comment. I attempted to work with a university, because | like most grants, never available without an academic tie- | in. In a pithy way, the only individual grants are mostly | NEA/NEH grants about writing books about writing books | (also applied for those). | | The university I worked with had a 40+% overhead rate auto- | included. This could not be negotiated. If you want to work | with us, we add this amount to our Govt. request. | | The university added a lot of extra work because of this. I | basically brought them a proposal, I literally walked over | to their partnership office and said "I've written a | proposal I'd like to work with you on." It was mostly | written, and said I think "some number" would be | reasonable. They said, we don't apply without 40+% | overhead, rewrite the whole grant so it works with our | overhead and faculty tie-in requirements. I said that seems | very large, and then none of the other numbers work. They | said, write with 40+%. | | The eventual result was that the university wanted me to | work as a sub-contractor being paid less than a different | contractor they were going to hire as a specialist, so I | could have the pleasure of partnering with them. | | Also, it needs to be completed a month before the deadline, | because then all our internals need to churn over the money | numbers (and predictably came back a check mark). I was | glad it lost. | renewiltord wrote: | American universities are a fantastic scheme. I'm working on | a project right now to see if I can bring this to high | schools. They're a massive machine to move money from | taxpayers into certain organizations very effectively. That's | why you'll see that the loudest voices for student loan | forgiveness go to these universities. Come on, you have a | Divinities degree from Harvard? That's a fictional thing. Of | course you're advocating for student loan debt discharge by | the taxpayers. Ideally, if you're running the university, | everyone gets $1 m to spend on university, and you charge $1 | m. | | Once we get school vouchers going we can do that for high | school too. It's going to be a revolution, man. Pure money | printing. | | And what's anyone going to try to say? You can't touch US | universities or schools. Education is important! I think I | could probably give one or two poor kids a scholarship and | trot them out every now and then. | WalterBright wrote: | This is hilarious. I've been lectured by several PhD's that | insist the NSF is an unbiased organization, doling out grants | based purely on scientific merit. | | Of course, it is nothing of the sort. | tombert wrote: | My dad used to be a full time professor of aerospace | engineering. He liked the research, and he didn't mind | teaching, but he quit after a few years because he absolutely | hated having to play "salesman" all the time. He found himself | seeing everyone as "potential funding", and he personally found | it kind of hard to turn that mentality off. | | He went back to industry after that, which has its share of | legitimate problems, but at least they don't typically expect | their engineers to also be sales people. | | Also universities pay shit. | fritzo wrote: | Is that true that aerospace engineers are not expected to act | as sales people? I've certainly found that in software, | engineers who don't sell their work get reassigned or laid | off. | BeetleB wrote: | Professors - particularly newly hired ones, need to spend | almost all their time selling. Between that and teaching | courses, they have little time for research. That's off | loaded to their grad students. | | When I was in grad school, the refrain of "I'm not going to | become a professor because I actually want to do research" | is common. They usually try to go to national labs, etc | instead. | ChuckMcM wrote: | And this is also why I think the single biggest innovation | starter billionaires could do would be to apply grant funds to | new Professors for interesting research. | golem14 wrote: | Not a billionaire, but of course this would be great. Are | there good suggestions on how to do that without paying the | university overhead AND being tax advantaged ? | | I cannot just go and give Professor X $10K to do this | research and claim a tax writeoff. | | Are there existing nonprofits who do this ? | | Are there Howtos on setting up such nonprofits ? | | Genuinely interested. Not just for academia, even for open | source. I can donate to the FSF, but if I want more people | improving/maintaining emacs or vim and those people get paid | for it, that's probably not the way, as the FSF does not do | this sort of thing, I believe. | seanr88 wrote: | In many professions including the business of startups and | academia you need to be at least as good at selling something as | you are at developing/discovering it. | rawgabbit wrote: | While that may be true today, in the research sciences -- there | should be some kind of middle ground. | | Thomas Edison may have been a giant of self promotion. But I | would argue Nikola Tesla invented as much or more | foundationally important technology we use today. I would argue | Tesla like Kariko will never be a wiz at self promotion. But a | domain expert should have spotted them early on. I mean isn't | that the job of people who dole out tax payer money for | research? | | UPDATE. I mixed up Edison and Tesla. Tesla was the champion | self promoter. | fsh wrote: | I think you got this backwards. Tesla made a few important | inventions early on and then spent the rest of his life | showing off big sparks and scamming investors. Edison's labs | were far more influential. | rawgabbit wrote: | Sorry I did get it backwards. | seanr88 wrote: | but the people you have to convince are the people who are | doling out tax payer money for research. By definition they | don't know your fabulous discovery only you know that. So you | need to convince someone else that the idea you have is worth | investigating and they should give you money to do it. So the | people who are best at convincing other people are the people | who get the grants and who get to do the research. | | Even once you have discovered something convincing other | people that what you have discovered is worthwhile is not | easy, as this article shows. | | Being a good fundraiser is more important than technical | skill in both research/academia and also in startups. | seanr88 wrote: | there is more to the analogy too. Once you have convinced a | large player that your offering is important and have | raised money successfully, everything gets a lot easier. | Have a big grant and work at a top University attracting | more money is a hell of a lot easier. Get into YC, guess | what raising your Series A just increased in probability by | about 20X. | rawgabbit wrote: | I don't disagree this is the reality. What I am trying to | say, is that I hope the people who dole out taxpayer funds | can spot people like Dr. Kariko and support them. | | Let me try a sports analogy. In American football, each | team takes turns (rounds) to draft new players. There are | college players who are already famous, had fantastic | careers at the college level, and all the scouting agencies | said they are can't miss. Then there are college players | who played for unknown schools and the scouts don't even | have a grade for them. As a result, teams dedicate the | first three rounds drafting the players everyone says are | can't miss (the good fundraiser in the Academic world). | However, the great teams are the ones who can find the | hidden gems and draft unknowns in later rounds because they | can see the talent (the hypothetical talent scout who | spotted the potential of messenger RNA research 20 years | ago). | BeetleB wrote: | Not a very helpful sentence in the context. | | Yes, academia (at least STEM) is such that you need to be good | at selling something. The difference is that the goal of a | startup is to make money, whereas that's _not_ the goal of | research. | | We could apply the mentality everywhere. Do you want to tell | teachers they need to be as good at selling their skills as | they are at teaching? | | Researchers are there to research. If a theoretical physicist | publishes a lot of papers in high quality journals without | bringing in money (because they don't need the money to do the | research), they'll be denied tenure. Even when doing | experimental work: If I bring enough to buy my equipment, and | pay for the staff (e.g. students) and publish good papers, I'll | be denied tenure if my colleague who is doing very different | research is bringing in a lot more money, because he has | decided to target that metric. | | Researchers need money to do their research. They shouldn't be | asked to bring in a lot more than they need. | shrubble wrote: | Reminder that: | | 1) Ken Iverson who invented the APL programming language and went | on to win the Turing Award in 1979, had already published 'that | one little book' that was considered insufficient for tenure, but | which formed the basis for the award. | | 2) tubes remained the main focus of MIT faculty for quite some | years after the transistor was invented. It was Robert Noyce and | the people he worked with at Grinnell College who knew more about | transistors than MIT : | https://web.stanford.edu/class/e145/2007_fall/materials/noyc... | 5kg wrote: | 3) Stephen Cook was denied tenure position at UCB: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Cook | robd003 wrote: | Reminder that Penn is the 2nd worst school for free speech: | https://rankings.thefire.org/rank/school/university-of-penns... | mightyham wrote: | As someone who is not in academia, I'm curious how dysfunctional | the incentive structures of these institutions really are? Is it | more the case that aggrieved professors doing actually good | research is just a rare situation bound to happen every once in a | while? | washadjeffmad wrote: | Everyone thinks their research is important, otherwise they | wouldn't be doing it. Not every chair, board, or panel can | fully understand every topic, especially when it's highly | specialized, much less predict its impact. | | So often, people feel like they're being neglected when they're | just not visible because they haven't communicated something to | an audience they either don't recognize or don't value. They | often write grants that don't explain the value of their work | in a way that can be presented to people who don't already | understand the value of the subject. | | And if they're already pessimistic about support, they won't | ask for support. If they're too focused on their work and not | paying attention to the new hires, they won't realize they need | to talk to their department about which faculty are using which | labs this semester. In general, even when faculty talk to each | other, they aren't always listening - at least not beyond | anything that might directly be of interest to them. | | And rarely does anyone ask, "How does all of this work, | anyway?" | | In a way, you're seeing the system working. Despite Kariko | being unhappy with Penn State, she was able to perform and | carry out research that did not prove critical until a global | pandemic, her research was able to be located, accessed, and | used, and she was subsequently recognized for it. | | We can't reward potential. It's unfortunate that she felt | unsupported by her department, but she did have personal | advocates who helped to advance her, and she certainly wasn't | the only researcher at Penn State - was she treated any | differently to them? | | And being blunt, if it were obvious that her research was | valuable, wouldn't it have already been done by others, making | this story pointless? Is it possible to be recognized for being | a hidden gem before you're found? | waterheater wrote: | What is your definition of "academic research"? Not all | research is academic, so take a moment to think about what that | means for you. I'll give you what I think it is in the next | paragraph. | | A HN commenter once wisely stated: "Building things [in | academia] is fine, but of course it's not academic research - | which is defined by the creation of game-changing concepts and | philosophical structures, some of which happen to be | mathematical." I completely agree. | | Many universities are majority funded by the US federal | government. The proportion of money a university receives from | federal student aid and federal research grants is wild, even | for a state-run public university. Without those funds, the | people currently employed at a university will lose their jobs, | so a university will attempt to work with those funding sources | as much as possible. How do universities increase incoming | federal student aid dollars? Enroll more students. How do | universities increase incoming federal research grant dollars? | Submit more grants. Though their phrasing is different, these | two goals are what drive the modern university administrator. | Let's set aside the student enrollment situation and just focus | on the grants. | | Federal research grants come from major federal entities, such | as the DHHS, NSF, DoE, DoD, and others. When a professor | receives a grant, the university take a sizable cut of the | grant. Some here have said that R1 institutions take 70%, and | that seems reasonable to me. So, for every grant that a | professor receives, the university receives money. As such, | universities select for professors who can write grants and get | them. Federal grants are often focused on big problems, and | these big problems require lots of technical resources, | interdisciplinary collaboration, and personnel. These problems | aren't unimportant, but they aren't "game-changing" concepts; | by applying for a competitive federal grant, everyone is | playing the game. One important note about grants is, they | typically require regular updates on results and a flow of | publications. | | So, you have a situation where universities tend to select for | professors with grant-seeking behavior, and those professors | ensure the universities receive grant dollars. If a professor | is sitting around playing with ideas which might become game- | changing philosophy and mathematics, they probably aren't | publishing papers, which means they probably haven't received a | grant, which means the university isn't getting grant dollars | from that professor. As a result, in the eyes of the | university, professors who publish more are better, and | professors who publish less are worse. | | I don't want discredit the professors who do very good work on | grant dollars. It's just becoming more apparent that the | current organizational structures of the modern research | university is breaking down. For example, though I don't | personally agree with doctoral students forming unions, I | understand why they're doing it: professors try to maximize | doctoral student output by paying them a pittance. | | As I said in other comments, a solution which should help fix | the culture is: (1) universities significantly reduce their | total number of incoming doctoral students for the next twenty | years, (2) universities immediately pay the existing doctoral | students better, and (3) universities explicitly select for | doctoral students interested in an academic career. Of course, | this approach has financial risk for the university, so the | political cost of implementation may be too steep for some. | However, it should, in time, naturally fix the problem. | zamalek wrote: | My experience in university convinced me that: modern | universities are not institutions of learning or discovery, they | are businesses and are only concerned about the bottom line. As | always, enshittification follows (and arguably happened a long | time ago already). That includes amazing short-term decision | making at the cost of long-term sustainability. | FireBeyond wrote: | Tangential quote I heard once, "Harvard is a hedge fund with a | university attached". | s1artibartfast wrote: | Unpopular opinion, but this was a reasonable outcome from the | university. | | If a researcher makes a great discovery, but can't get funding to | do anything with it, You don't keep them around not making | progress. | | They got pushed out, found funding, and finally furthered the | technology. | | It is unclear if more scientific progress would have been made if | they were kept at penn without funding. | mjburgess wrote: | You have summarised the incentives. You've yet to defend them. | | Presumably the point of research is that it's not commercially | viable at this stage; were it, the market would already address | this need. | | Why bother with a university research system which 'lives or | dies' just as start ups do? We already have those. | | It is widely recognised that there needs to be a long (perhaps | millenia-long) pipeline of 'unprofitable' research into | commerical outlets. Who thought playing around with wires and | magents would lead anywhere? | ModernMech wrote: | Unfortunately universities are not immune to the realities of | living in a capitalistic society. Money needs to be made, | growth needs to be demonstrated, debts need to be paid, and | for that grants need to come in. People recognize that | unprofitable research is necessary, but no one wants to fund | it. And event when by some miracle it does get funded, people | complain loudly and mock it ruthlessly. Sometimes the | institution stays strong, sometimes it buckles under the | pressure. | johnp271 wrote: | "Unfortunately universities are not immune to the realities | of living in a capitalistic society." | | There might be unpleasant realities of living in a | capitalistic society but they are less unpleasant than | living in any other sort of society. | s1artibartfast wrote: | The government funds a large amounts of unprofitable | research because some of it may prove valuable. much of it | does not prove valuable. | | Unlimited funding for all researchers is not a viable | option, so discretion is used. Very smart people put effort | in to competing and selecting the most promising options. | | One could argue that this technology was overlooked | initially (although it eventually DID get funded). | | What nobody suggests is how this technology should have | been discerned from the rest without future knowledge. | s1artibartfast wrote: | The defense would be that this set of incentives worked. We | have an amazing rna vaccine that saved millions of lives. | This came about from public ally funded primary research and | privately funded subsequent research. | | It is easy to opine on the amazing value of the amazing | technology or the vaccines should have been carried forward | with perfect hindsight. This was not obvious to other | academics or private markets at the time. | | The only way to avoid this with certainty would be to tenure | every academic, and publicly fund every project. | | > It is widely recognized that there needs to be a long | (perhaps millenia-long) pipeline of 'unprofitable' research | into commerical outlets. Who thought playing around with | wires and magents would lead anywhere? | | We do amazing things with wires and magnets. You know because | the system worked, just like it did with mRNA vaccines. | | Masses of very smart people do their best to assign | government grants, and invest private money for returns. If | someone can perfectly predict scientific winners and losers, | there would be no problem. | | Simply funding all "unprofitable" research is not a workable | solution. If we did this, every university would have an | alchemy department. Making something work is not just a | matter of time an money. | | I have defended the current incentives. Do you have a | workable alternative that doesnt involve future knowledge? | rdiddly wrote: | Being currently in the middle of belatedly reading The Black | Swan, I can't help but see this as a classic case. Penn has a | formula that's supposed to predict "success," and it's a linear | formula: more papers & funding leads linearly to more success. y | = mx + b which is _totally_ how the world works, right? Not if | you 've read Nassim Taleb or even Paul Graham's essays about | mining unfashionable/disreputable/heretical ground for ideas | nobody else has thought of or is willing to consider. Just like | startups, somebody is going to discover something huge in there. | Even if you were willing to say a university isn't a place of | ideas for their own sake, and is instead nothing more than a | venture capital firm like their bureaucrats seem to be asserting | - in short even with the profit/greed motive intact, it still | seems like a dumb strategy to model the world as linear and | boring. | d--b wrote: | Well the fact is that she remained at Penn for 30+ years, so | clearly it couldn't be that horrible. And there she made some | groundbreaking discoveries that contributed to the COVID vaccine | and she got a Nobel Prize, so she probably did get some people | behind her. | | University politics are terrible, but in this very case, whatever | happened, it turned out pretty good for both her and the | University. | ceejayoz wrote: | > Well the fact is that she remained at Penn for 30+ years, so | clearly it couldn't be that horrible. | | People stay married to abusive partners for decades, too. | godelski wrote: | I knew there was trouble as soon as I saw "Nobel Prize [winner]" | and "Adjunct professor" in the same sentence. What's it take to | get tenure track these days? But she mentions the rate of | publications. Kps noted that Peter Higgs said something similar | as well. There's many others too! Turing prize winner Hinton had | this to say about ML and I couldn't agree more | | > One big challenge the community faces is that if you want to | get a paper published in machine learning now it's got to have a | table in it, with all these different data sets across the top, | and all these different methods along the side, and your method | has to look like the best one. If it doesn't look like that, it's | hard to get published. I don't think that's encouraging people to | think about radically new ideas. | | > Now if you send in a paper that has a radically new idea, | there's no chance in hell it will get accepted, because it's | going to get some junior reviewer who doesn't understand it. Or | it's going to get a senior reviewer who's trying to review too | many papers and doesn't understand it first time round and | assumes it must be nonsense. Anything that makes the brain hurt | is not going to get accepted. And I think that's really bad. | | Or from Bengio | | > In the rush preceding a conference deadline, many papers are | produced, but there is not enough time to check things properly | and the race to put out more papers (especially as first or | equal-first author) is humanly crushing. On the other hand, I am | convinced that some of the most important advances have come | through a slower process, with the time to think deeply, to step | back, and to verify things carefully. Pressure has a negative | effect on the quality of the science we generate. I would like us | to think about Slow Science (check their manifesto!). | | > Students sometimes come to me two months before a deadline | asking if I have ideas of something which could be achieved in | two months. | | I'm sure you can find one from LeCun too (drop it if you have it) | and we have the 3 godfathers of ML. But as someone finishing my | PhD, I'm utterly convinced that the whole process is psychotic | and anti-scientific. I have written many rants on HN about this | so what's another? Here's how I see it, and what I've been | coining as Goodhart's Hell because the idea is more abstract that | ML publishing or even academic publishing. There's just a huge | fucking irony that this happens in ML. | | It is Goodhart's Hell because everything in our world has become | about easy to use metrics and bending over backwards to meet | those metrics. There is not just a lack of concern about if the | metric aligns with our intended goals, but an active readiness to | brush off any concerns. We as a modern world just fucking | embraced metric hacking as the actual goal. In ML we see this, as | Hinton mentions, with benchmarkism with just trying to get top | scores. But you need several (fwiw, I've held a top spot for over | a year now on a popular generative dataset but the work remains | unpublished because I don't have enough compute to tune other | datasets. Reviewers just ask for more but not justify the ask by | how another dataset says more). This is an insane world, | especially as we've been degrading our statistical principles. | The last 5+ years no one uses a validation set for classification | but rather tunes their fucking hyperparameters on test set | results. Generative models frequently measure metrics against the | train set and don't have a test set! A true, honest to god, hold | out set essentially doesn't exist (we might call it "zero shot", | which is inaccurate, or "OOD"...). ML work has simply become a | matter of compute. Like Higgs said, you need to publish fast, but | these days top companies are asking for 5+ papers at a top | conference for a newly minted PhD. I'm sorry, good work takes | time. All this on top of several consistency experiments that | demonstrate that reviewers are simply reject first ask questions | later. Which why shouldn't they be? No one checks a reject and | doing so increases the odds your work gets in since it's a zero | sum game. | | And in honesty, I don't see how conferences and journals are | anything but fraud. Not in the sense that works in there are | untrue (though a lot are and a lot more are junk. Regardless of | field), but in the economic operation. The government and | universities (double dipping on that gov money) pay for these to | exist. Universities pay researchers to produce work. Researchers | send to venues (journals/conferences). Researchers review other | works submitted to the venue for no pay (so Uni pays). 80% of | work gets rejected, and goes through the process again. And after | all that, the only meaningful thing accomplished is that the | university has a signal that the work that their researchers did | is "good." Because the venue gets copyright ownership over the | paper, which the university must now pay for to access (the | "official" version, "preprints" are free). I'm sorry, but | citation count is a bad metric but far more meaningful than venue | publication and it's fucking free. Why don't we just fucking | publish to OpenReview? The point of publishing is to communicate | our work, nothing more nothing less. OR gives you hosting like | arxiv but also comments and threads (and links to github). Do we | need anything else? I mean no review can actually determine if a | paper is valid or good work. But we forget that the world isn't | binary, it's tertiary: True, False, Indeterminate (thanks Godel, | Turing, and Young). In reviewing we do not have access to the | "True" side, just as we don't have access to that in science in | general. We do not know where the "True" direction points, but we | know how to move away from the "False" and "Indeterminate" | directions. That's why there's that famous substack named that | way or Isaac Asimov's famous Relativity of Wrong paper[2]. We're | not a religion here... | | There is at least a few ways I know how to fight back. 1) | Actually fucking review a work and do your god damn job. Your job | isn't to be a filter, it is to earnestly read the work and to | work with the authors to make it the best work it can be. | Remember you're on the same side. 2) Simply don't review if you | can't do #1. You're almost never required to and academic service | isn't worth much, so why do it? 3) Flip the system on its head. | Instead of concentrating on reasons to reject a paper (fucking | easy shit right there), focus on reasons to accept a paper. | Simply ask yourself "is there something __someone__ in the | community would find useful here?" If yes, accept. Novelty | doesn't exist in a world where we have 20k+ papers a year and | produce works every few months. It's okay to move fast, but it's | less novel and impactful, it's just closer to open science. Stop | concentrating on benchmarks since if it's useful someone is going | to tune the shit out of it anyways, benchmarks don't mean shit. | These days benchmarks are better at showing overfitting than good | results anyways (yes, your test loss can continue to decrease | while you overfit). | | [0] https://www.wired.com/story/googles-ai-guru-computers- | think-... | | [1] https://yoshuabengio.org/2020/02/26/time-to-rethink-the- | publ... | | [2] https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html | aborsy wrote: | The US academic system is focused on money, and operates like a | for-profit business. | | Does EU produce better science, I wonder? | ceejayoz wrote: | My favorite little bit about all this: | | https://www.glamour.com/story/katalin-kariko-biontech-women-... | | > In 2013--after enduring multiple professional setbacks, one | denied grant after another, and a demotion at the institution to | which she'd been devoted for decades--Katalin Kariko, Ph.D., | walked out of her lab at the University of Pennsylvania's School | of Medicine for the last time. | | > That morning at the lab, Kariko's old boss had come to see her | off. She did not tell him what a terrible mistake he was making | in letting her leave. She didn't gloat about her future at | BioNTech, a pharmaceuticals firm that millions now associate with | lifesaving vaccines but was then a relative upstart in the field. | Instead the woman who had bounced from department to department, | with no tenure prospects and never earning over $60,000 a year, | said with total confidence: "In the future, this lab will be a | museum. Don't touch it." | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: | Cinderella) | mlsu wrote: | Reading the comments here, it seems that even very prestigious | universities are full of academic pettiness and dysfunction which | deny all of us the output of brilliant people like Katalin | Kariko. | | It leaves me wondering: why do we not create any new | universities? Why doesn't a Carnegie of our age create a new | university? Brin University? Zuck University? This seems like a | no brainer. | | I think it might _seem_ difficult to attract new talent to an | "unestablished" university. But what if you make a simple | promise: we will never, ever get in your way, the way that | universities do today. We will never pressure you to publish | subpar results. We will never nit-pick your purchase of a laptop. | Have vision! Pursue things that are promising to you! We trust | you, smart person, and we will give you autonomy to do what you | think is promising. Based on what is discussed here, it seems | like that would be extraordinarily compelling to the most | optimistic, least cynical, and probably at least a handful of the | most brilliant researchers out there. If the winning move is not | to play the game, don't play. | | I don't know. It just seems like there is a narrow-mindedness at | play. A sense that "why try to fix this -- we'll never beat | UPenn. Maybe not, but isn't it worth a try, based on how | dysfunctional academia is? All it takes is the will. | lupire wrote: | Today they make companies. Kariko went private to great | success. | waterheater wrote: | Look into the difficulties faced by the University of Austin | [1] (not the University of Texas at Austin). | | This is a project which explicitly seems to be pushing back | against the current toxic academic environment, yet a major | issue they are encountering seems to be degree accreditation. | To get "recognized" these days, the American Association of | University Professors (AAUP) [2] will need to agree that your | school teaches things correctly. Of course, the AAUP is | responsible for the current toxic academic environment, so it's | a catch-22. | | Zuck University almost certainly will be fully aligned with the | AAUP. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Austin | | [2] https://www.aaup.org/ | ubermonkey wrote: | U of Austin is having difficulty because it's defined from | the jump as a right-wing institution. | etrautmann wrote: | Unless the organization is fundamentally structured with | difference incentives, I'm not sure it'll achieve a different | outcome. | | It's a hard but necessary challenge to prioritize research, | which requires that every research group advocate the utility | of their work and be evaluated in comparison with others. | dbmikus wrote: | Tangentially related, but her daughter is Susan Francia, who is | an Olympic gold medalist rower. It's wild to me when you see | family members at the top of their completely different fields. | johnp271 wrote: | The research and discoveries that are most deserving of a Nobel | Prize are precisely the sort that are unexpected and unpredicted | in advance. All this "Monday morning quarterbacking" by everyone | who now suggest that this discovery should have been obvious 20+ | years ago or that the talent of those who made the discovery | should have been obvious is rather silly. | | Arguably the story of how this researcher was treated and what | she still managed to accomplish can serve as inspiration and | motivation to persevere to future generations of folks with | unconventional ideas or ideas that are disparaged by the | 'experts'. Yes, it can also serve as motivation to research | institutions to take risks and go out on limbs every now and then | as there can be some wheat hidden within the chaff. | senkora wrote: | > Unless something changes, this isn't going to go well," Grady | told Kariko, according to her memoir. | | While unpleasant, this is a conversation that is sometimes | necessary to have as someone in a position of power communicating | to a subordinate. | | > In 2013, Kariko said she returned to her lab after spending | time away to find all of her belongings having been packed, | moved, and misplaced at Grady's direction. | | But this is just petty and cruel. | very_good_man wrote: | Academia seems like a wonderful place into which we, as a | society, should send unlimited borrowed money. | dakial1 wrote: | The thing is, any human group, company, academia, etc...are | influenced by politics, and those who do it well get the | attention and the resources. It doesn't matter if they are | technically brilliant or not. | | There is no place where you don't need good communication and | selling skills. That's a fact of life and it seem impossible to | remove this from any of these institutions. | | Kariko seems to be that very hardworking intelligent person that | really needs an eloquent and self-marketer sidekick to thrive. | She is a Steve Wozniak in need for a Steve Jobs. | contemporary343 wrote: | Some of this is universal, but much of her story is particular to | how US med schools operate: their research faculty tend to be | largely soft money in nature, so grant money is even more | necessary than in other 'hard money' jobs in non-med school | fields. Such a system is destined to fail when geniuses like | Kariko pursue risky new territory for which large grants are hard | to secure. | contemporary343 wrote: | Some of this is universal, but much of her story is particular to | how US med schools operate: their research faculty tend to be | largely soft money in nature, so grant money is even more | necessary than in other 'hard money' jobs in non-med school | fields. Such a system is destined to fail when geniuses like | Kariko pursue risky new territory for which large grants are hard | to secure. | | The really distasteful thing here is Penn as an institution. They | have reaped the benefits of her work in terms of mRNA patent | royalties (a very large number I believe), and of course | reputationally. Yet, they treated her truly terribly and have | never - and it seems like will never - acknowledge it. For | example, Sean Grady, mentioned here as the one that essentially | cleared out her lab in 2013 without telling her is the chair of | neurosurgery at Penn Medicine. Will he apologize? I doubt it. | zaptheimpaler wrote: | Her book Breaking Through [1] also goes into more detail about | this. Basically academia is now ruled by the same rotten economic | lenses as the rest of the economy. Everything is about profits, | labs are evaluated in "grant $/sqft." and people are evaluated on | a "resume" or dumb metrics like papers published. It's really | hopeless how this economic virus infects every little corner of | our world and turns it to shit. | | This isn't just one story, there are countless other researchers | and even life-saving drugs that are not developed purely because | of this mindset. For a brief moment in time during the COVID | pandemic we saw that it is possible to have a better system but | it's been forgotten just as quickly. | | [1] https://www.kobo.com/ca/en/ebook/breaking-through-34 | ubermonkey wrote: | I really love how bad Penn looks on this now. It's hilarious. | DrNosferatu wrote: | What about the psychology angle? | | I get the feeling Katalin Kariko got a lot of that flak because | she made some narcissists look bad (directly or indirectly, by | comparison). | | - Your views on this? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-10-27 23:00 UTC)