They're actually not great from that perspective: when you count the portion of tuition that professors are expected to pay (at least at U.S. institutions), PhD students aren't any cheaper than postdocs, and typically less productive / require more hand-holding.
Now postdocs, there's a deal: accomplished researcher who already has several degrees in the field and knows how to write papers and conduct experiments, available for ~$45-50k.
For "normal" faculty members (i.e. those not waving around Turing awards, Fields medals, and Nobels), the number and quality of Ph.D. students (where I'm from, Masters didn't count) the professor has advised is one of the most, if not the most, important prestige factors.
Getting grants and writing papers will get you tenure, but are significantly less important after you have it.
I agree that's generally true, though my sense is that in CS it might be shifting somewhat: an alternate route to level-up once you get tenure is to go all-in on the big-money grants and hiring personnel. Start pulling in some multi-million-dollar DARPA projects and hire not only post-docs but more senior staff researchers, and an army of programmers, and become a manager of a bustling research enterprise. Then you can start working media appearances (maybe through the help of PR staff you've hired, even), that kind of thing. Those kinds of profs often don't bother with supervising grad students anymore, or pawn off the job on someone else in their empire. It's sort of like running a little consulting firm within academia.
In areas with fewer DARPA-sized projects, students are definitely the best way to get major influence, though, since producing research progeny is a good way to spread ideas, general approaches to research, etc. It seems to be particularly the case in mathematics that certain mathematicians are influential in part because they mentored a substantial portion of a generation of researchers.
That's entirely possible. In fact, I suspect that is what happened in AI in the early- to mid-'80's, judging by the number of people I know who lost jobs in the subsequent AI winter.
offensive bullshit. my partner is a prof. she works her fucking heart out trying to help her students.
downvote all you like, you ignorant fools (so ready with a cheap piece of cynicism). everyone i know cares deeply about their students. they're like surrogate kids.
i wasn't inviting anyone. i was responding to downvotes.
and frankly, i don't see why i should be civil to people who mindlessly accuse others of not caring about something that, in fact, is hugely important to them, just to appear cynically cool.
more generally, the problem with hn these days is not a lack of politeness; it is a lack of insight, depth and originality. read any thread here. this kind of cheap, cynical throw-away remark is the bland norm.
maybe you should find some authority figure saying "be smart and care" and try posting that? best of luck...
"i wasn't inviting anyone. i was responding to downvotes."
er... "downvote all you like"?
That sort of remark in response to downmods (or the expectation thereof) is precisely what that line in the guidelines is about. But, if you insist you weren't "inviting", let's look at the next guideline up instead:
Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
"i don't see why i should be civil [...]"
Because the guidelines of this community ask that you be civil, and they don't say "oh, but feel free to ignore that bit if someone annoys you". Because fighting incivility with incivility is the path to flamewars. Because, if you don't like the behaviour an online community expects of its participants, you can either: leave, and make everyone involved happier; or: stick around, flout the local etiquette, and piss everyone involved off.
"more generally, the problem with hn these days [...] read any thread here. this kind of cheap, cynical throw-away remark is the bland norm."
Okay, let's take this submission by way of example. I see... exactly one "cheap, cynical throw-away remark", the very one you replied to -- and it's been modded down to near the bottom. That's the usual pattern I see: sure, there's a little vacuous snark, but it's far from the majority of comments, and it tends to get downmodded pretty hard.
Regardless, if you're so convinced that HN has such endemic problems -- well, my comment earlier "if you don't like the behaviour an online community expects of its participants ..." applies equally well to "if you don't like the discussions on an online community...".
"maybe you should find some authority figure [...]"
Oh, my post wasn't about invoking authority. They're guidelines, not rules. But nice job trying to paint me as a cowed bootlicker because I pointed out you were either unaware of or wilfully disregarding them.
It's worth noting that the poster you responded to said "from the faculty's perspective", not "from their adviser's perspective".
Individual faculty members care a lot for their individual grad students, and generally go out of their way to help them. They academic system as a whole (which is partially run by the faculty) treats them pretty poorly (long hours, way below market pay--often near the poverty line and largely without benefits that well educated professionals [which is what grad students are] would expect in any other job).
No one is saying that your partner is a bad person. They're saying that the system is a bad system.
> and frankly, i don't see why i should be civil to people who mindlessly accuse others of not caring about something that, in fact, is hugely important to them, just to appear cynically cool.
Because civility is the foundation of civilization, i.e., society, even in the microcosm. If you disagree, consider how to carefully respond and present a reasonable argument. This is the stated standard for HN.
If you don't like the tone of discourse and feel it could have insight, depth, and originality, please add insight, depth, and originality, in a civil fashion.
Because it's the protocol here. Because it contributes negatively to the discussion. Because it makes you, and indirectly your point, look worse.
>it is a lack of insight, depth and originality
Perhaps your own bias is preventing you from understanding their perspective? You're not the only person here who knows someone in academia, there is a very wide range in the way professors deal with their students, especially across fields and departments.
That's actually true, for the most part. I don't know about "surrogate kids", but in my experience, most faculty realize that the strongest effect they're going to have is through the students they graduate. They're strongly motivated to graduate their students and make sure those students do well after they've graduated.
I have my own favorite version of the joke ("Graduate school: Not just a job, it's an indenture!"), but the idea is pretty offensive and isn't especially relevant to anything I've seen.
[And yes, I'm sure I'm a great disappointment to Mohamed.]
I don't have any experience with fields that require a large laboratory of techs to get anything done, though. If you are in biology, physics, chemistry, or what-not, your mileage may vary.
Woah, chill man. I was in science, I've seen the ugly side of academia. I'm glad your partner is a good PI...the world needs more of them.
That said, there are plenty of PIs who see grads and post-docs as nothing more than a revolving door of cheap labor. My comment may have been snarky and short, but I stand by the statement and don't apologize for it.
As a whole, academic science is a horribly backward place to work. In my field (biology), most grads stick around because of a misplaced sense of honor/duty/guilt.
"If you can't stay in science, you can't hack it! Now go finish that experiment over the weekend."
I'll add that a lot of them also stick around as they have no other work experience and don't know what else to do.
I actually see this more and more, it seems like getting a PhD is the "well, I don't wanna get a real job yet" pathway, which is really sad. It's also frustrating to work around those people as they have no drive.
why would you write this? faculty themselves are working class. they are more akin to accomplices than masterminds of the system. even if you agree with the analogy of the parent comment. this is emotional and poor analysis. serious money now runs the system, and that is handled by the gov't, the trustees, and the president. very few academics are ever 'fully funded' -- they all must suck at the tit, themselves for future nourishment.
If she's a prof, then she's engaging in the scam that is the current university system. Is she or the other profs you know advocating for the abolition of undergraduate degrees to be replaced by online learning like coursera or udacity. Also, abolishing phds/tenure and replacing with funding their research from kickstarter/indiegogo. Probably not. They might care about their few chosen students (selfishly, for the social company and labor it provides) but they're putting their finger up at the entire rest of the world (which includes potential students that never were, like in africa or india).
Well, depends on where you are really. For instance, here in the Netherlands, you barely follow courses (20-25 EC in four years) and the teaching load is small (usually at least one 5 EC course in four years, more if you want).
So, you can dedicate ~80% of your time to research as a paid employee of the university, including ~ 1.5 months paid leave including weekends, holiday money (8% of year income), 13th month (one month extra salary per year) and benefits (retirement fund, unemployment benefit).
I have just finished my thesis, and during the last four years I have felt as welcome and as much part of the staff as any other employee.
I worked as a Research Associate (contract researcher) for a UK university in the 1990s - this paid a decent salary, had minimal teaching requirements (a couple of hours a week) and if your supervisor was decent the topic you were paid to work on was pretty close to your PhD research topic - usually they would find money from some contract to pay you for the 6 months or so required to do nothing but write your thesis.
Most people doing things this way took 4 or 5 years rather than the 3 of full time PhD students - but at least you got a decent salary - not a bad trade off (not to mention the other perks of working on EU funded projects).
[Of course, some supervisors were good some were awful - I heard some horror stories from colleagues].
As pointed out by others, it is not good to paint everyone by the same brush. My advisor has always had the best of intentions in his mind for me. I know of other studens who say something similar as well. I understand that there an be varying experiences but do not let these experiences make you generalize any fraternity.
Agreed, one can't say that all PIs work the same, it isn't true.
Also, some do have the best of intentions, but don't have the skills to facilitate their student's career.
In a sense, each lab is a small business, and I think this is exactly what needs to be taught to a new professor. It is a real shame that this isn't taught. People management, money management, and resource management are skills that some people, regardless of how brilliant they are, don't have.
As it would in any business, these attributes ultimately lead to a lab that is run poorly. The really bad thing is that these labs continue to operate, which is a huge waste...especially when talking about federally funded labs.
+1, totally agreed. Now, what slave is suppose to do in order to make himself/herself any good, not only contribute to master's good?
publish: papers, code, articles, notes! the higher quality and larger amount, the better! The goal is to be observed by the next employer (hopefully not a master), but just a team lead ;)
