post_id
stringlengths 5
7
| domain
stringclasses 18
values | upvote_ratio
float64 0.5
1
| history
stringlengths 22
39.2k
| c_root_id_A
stringlengths 7
7
| c_root_id_B
stringlengths 7
7
| created_at_utc_A
int64 1.28B
1.67B
| created_at_utc_B
int64 1.28B
1.67B
| score_A
int64 2
43.5k
| score_B
int64 2
43.2k
| human_ref_A
stringlengths 0
10.7k
| human_ref_B
stringlengths 0
10.8k
| labels
int64 0
1
| seconds_difference
float64 0
145M
| score_ratio
float64 1
3.72k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpphf2 | iwphx5b | 1,668,689,243 | 1,668,684,154 | 30 | 24 | A bit niche, but: Will any crap we put into graphene increase its electrocatalytic effect? Electrocatalysis goes nuts | Recently a PhD student “set up an experimental method of masturbating to shota comics” but the paper was retracted after it has gone onto Daily Mail etc… https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/I_am_not_alone_–_we_are_all_alone:_Using_masturbation_as_an_ethnographic_method_in_research_on_shota_subculture_in_Japan | 1 | 5,089 | 1.25 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpphf2 | iwp75h9 | 1,668,689,243 | 1,668,674,683 | 30 | 22 | A bit niche, but: Will any crap we put into graphene increase its electrocatalytic effect? Electrocatalysis goes nuts | Chicken Chicken Chicken: Chicken Chicken | 1 | 14,560 | 1.363636 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpphf2 | iwp7g7j | 1,668,689,243 | 1,668,674,944 | 30 | 21 | A bit niche, but: Will any crap we put into graphene increase its electrocatalytic effect? Electrocatalysis goes nuts | An In-Depth Analysis of a Piece of Shit Figure 1 and 2 are amazing | 1 | 14,299 | 1.428571 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwp9uz5 | iwpphf2 | 1,668,677,153 | 1,668,689,243 | 20 | 30 | Unsuccessful Treatment of a Case of Writer's Block. | A bit niche, but: Will any crap we put into graphene increase its electrocatalytic effect? Electrocatalysis goes nuts | 0 | 12,090 | 1.5 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpab7f | iwpphf2 | 1,668,677,572 | 1,668,689,243 | 11 | 30 | The Parachute Trial (also a BMJ Christmas issue) https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 The point of the paper is the importance of criticality and context | A bit niche, but: Will any crap we put into graphene increase its electrocatalytic effect? Electrocatalysis goes nuts | 0 | 11,671 | 2.727273 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpphf2 | iwp6d7f | 1,668,689,243 | 1,668,673,987 | 30 | 9 | A bit niche, but: Will any crap we put into graphene increase its electrocatalytic effect? Electrocatalysis goes nuts | The BMJ’s case report where a guy brings a surprise visitor in his backpack to hospital. Worth the paywall. When patients’ priorities conflict with those of their medical team; a challenging case of a bleeding patient and his dying pet https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/1/e237942?rss=1 | 1 | 15,256 | 3.333333 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpphf2 | iwplued | 1,668,689,243 | 1,668,686,962 | 30 | 9 | A bit niche, but: Will any crap we put into graphene increase its electrocatalytic effect? Electrocatalysis goes nuts | "Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List" https://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam | 1 | 2,281 | 3.333333 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpphf2 | iwpe084 | 1,668,689,243 | 1,668,680,932 | 30 | 6 | A bit niche, but: Will any crap we put into graphene increase its electrocatalytic effect? Electrocatalysis goes nuts | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260800015_Structural_and_electronic_properties_of_chiral_single-wall_copper_nanotubes Enjoy the abstract. | 1 | 8,311 | 5 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpphf2 | iwpl3sh | 1,668,689,243 | 1,668,686,470 | 30 | 6 | A bit niche, but: Will any crap we put into graphene increase its electrocatalytic effect? Electrocatalysis goes nuts | I read one about Harry Potter FanFiction and the fight against heteronormativity. Made decent arguments🪄🧙♂️ | 1 | 2,773 | 5 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwphx5b | iwp75h9 | 1,668,684,154 | 1,668,674,683 | 24 | 22 | Recently a PhD student “set up an experimental method of masturbating to shota comics” but the paper was retracted after it has gone onto Daily Mail etc… https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/I_am_not_alone_–_we_are_all_alone:_Using_masturbation_as_an_ethnographic_method_in_research_on_shota_subculture_in_Japan | Chicken Chicken Chicken: Chicken Chicken | 1 | 9,471 | 1.090909 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwp7g7j | iwphx5b | 1,668,674,944 | 1,668,684,154 | 21 | 24 | An In-Depth Analysis of a Piece of Shit Figure 1 and 2 are amazing | Recently a PhD student “set up an experimental method of masturbating to shota comics” but the paper was retracted after it has gone onto Daily Mail etc… https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/I_am_not_alone_–_we_are_all_alone:_Using_masturbation_as_an_ethnographic_method_in_research_on_shota_subculture_in_Japan | 0 | 9,210 | 1.142857 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwp9uz5 | iwphx5b | 1,668,677,153 | 1,668,684,154 | 20 | 24 | Unsuccessful Treatment of a Case of Writer's Block. | Recently a PhD student “set up an experimental method of masturbating to shota comics” but the paper was retracted after it has gone onto Daily Mail etc… https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/I_am_not_alone_–_we_are_all_alone:_Using_masturbation_as_an_ethnographic_method_in_research_on_shota_subculture_in_Japan | 0 | 7,001 | 1.2 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpab7f | iwphx5b | 1,668,677,572 | 1,668,684,154 | 11 | 24 | The Parachute Trial (also a BMJ Christmas issue) https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 The point of the paper is the importance of criticality and context | Recently a PhD student “set up an experimental method of masturbating to shota comics” but the paper was retracted after it has gone onto Daily Mail etc… https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/I_am_not_alone_–_we_are_all_alone:_Using_masturbation_as_an_ethnographic_method_in_research_on_shota_subculture_in_Japan | 0 | 6,582 | 2.181818 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwphx5b | iwp6d7f | 1,668,684,154 | 1,668,673,987 | 24 | 9 | Recently a PhD student “set up an experimental method of masturbating to shota comics” but the paper was retracted after it has gone onto Daily Mail etc… https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/I_am_not_alone_–_we_are_all_alone:_Using_masturbation_as_an_ethnographic_method_in_research_on_shota_subculture_in_Japan | The BMJ’s case report where a guy brings a surprise visitor in his backpack to hospital. Worth the paywall. When patients’ priorities conflict with those of their medical team; a challenging case of a bleeding patient and his dying pet https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/1/e237942?rss=1 | 1 | 10,167 | 2.666667 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpe084 | iwphx5b | 1,668,680,932 | 1,668,684,154 | 6 | 24 | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260800015_Structural_and_electronic_properties_of_chiral_single-wall_copper_nanotubes Enjoy the abstract. | Recently a PhD student “set up an experimental method of masturbating to shota comics” but the paper was retracted after it has gone onto Daily Mail etc… https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/I_am_not_alone_–_we_are_all_alone:_Using_masturbation_as_an_ethnographic_method_in_research_on_shota_subculture_in_Japan | 0 | 3,222 | 4 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwp6d7f | iwp75h9 | 1,668,673,987 | 1,668,674,683 | 9 | 22 | The BMJ’s case report where a guy brings a surprise visitor in his backpack to hospital. Worth the paywall. When patients’ priorities conflict with those of their medical team; a challenging case of a bleeding patient and his dying pet https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/1/e237942?rss=1 | Chicken Chicken Chicken: Chicken Chicken | 0 | 696 | 2.444444 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwp7g7j | iwp6d7f | 1,668,674,944 | 1,668,673,987 | 21 | 9 | An In-Depth Analysis of a Piece of Shit Figure 1 and 2 are amazing | The BMJ’s case report where a guy brings a surprise visitor in his backpack to hospital. Worth the paywall. When patients’ priorities conflict with those of their medical team; a challenging case of a bleeding patient and his dying pet https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/1/e237942?rss=1 | 1 | 957 | 2.333333 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwp6d7f | iwp9uz5 | 1,668,673,987 | 1,668,677,153 | 9 | 20 | The BMJ’s case report where a guy brings a surprise visitor in his backpack to hospital. Worth the paywall. When patients’ priorities conflict with those of their medical team; a challenging case of a bleeding patient and his dying pet https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/1/e237942?rss=1 | Unsuccessful Treatment of a Case of Writer's Block. | 0 | 3,166 | 2.222222 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwq9bmg | iwpxwav | 1,668,698,770 | 1,668,693,710 | 18 | 16 | “No time to die: An in-depth analysis of James Bond's exposure to infectious agents” The conclusions and acknowledgments are great: “There was no specific funding for this project. Given the futility of its academic value, this is deemed entirely appropriate by all authors.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893921002167 | http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/sillymolecules/birds.pdf It was written to show that a predatory journal would accept anything. | 1 | 5,060 | 1.125 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwq3cb6 | iwq9bmg | 1,668,696,195 | 1,668,698,770 | 15 | 18 | "The Unsuccessful Treatment of a Case of Writer's Block" has to be in there somewhere. It's a short read ;) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311997/ | “No time to die: An in-depth analysis of James Bond's exposure to infectious agents” The conclusions and acknowledgments are great: “There was no specific funding for this project. Given the futility of its academic value, this is deemed entirely appropriate by all authors.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893921002167 | 0 | 2,575 | 1.2 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpab7f | iwq9bmg | 1,668,677,572 | 1,668,698,770 | 11 | 18 | The Parachute Trial (also a BMJ Christmas issue) https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 The point of the paper is the importance of criticality and context | “No time to die: An in-depth analysis of James Bond's exposure to infectious agents” The conclusions and acknowledgments are great: “There was no specific funding for this project. Given the futility of its academic value, this is deemed entirely appropriate by all authors.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893921002167 | 0 | 21,198 | 1.636364 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwp6d7f | iwq9bmg | 1,668,673,987 | 1,668,698,770 | 9 | 18 | The BMJ’s case report where a guy brings a surprise visitor in his backpack to hospital. Worth the paywall. When patients’ priorities conflict with those of their medical team; a challenging case of a bleeding patient and his dying pet https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/1/e237942?rss=1 | “No time to die: An in-depth analysis of James Bond's exposure to infectious agents” The conclusions and acknowledgments are great: “There was no specific funding for this project. Given the futility of its academic value, this is deemed entirely appropriate by all authors.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893921002167 | 0 | 24,783 | 2 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwq9bmg | iwplued | 1,668,698,770 | 1,668,686,962 | 18 | 9 | “No time to die: An in-depth analysis of James Bond's exposure to infectious agents” The conclusions and acknowledgments are great: “There was no specific funding for this project. Given the futility of its academic value, this is deemed entirely appropriate by all authors.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893921002167 | "Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List" https://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam | 1 | 11,808 | 2 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwq9bmg | iwpe084 | 1,668,698,770 | 1,668,680,932 | 18 | 6 | “No time to die: An in-depth analysis of James Bond's exposure to infectious agents” The conclusions and acknowledgments are great: “There was no specific funding for this project. Given the futility of its academic value, this is deemed entirely appropriate by all authors.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893921002167 | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260800015_Structural_and_electronic_properties_of_chiral_single-wall_copper_nanotubes Enjoy the abstract. | 1 | 17,838 | 3 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpl3sh | iwq9bmg | 1,668,686,470 | 1,668,698,770 | 6 | 18 | I read one about Harry Potter FanFiction and the fight against heteronormativity. Made decent arguments🪄🧙♂️ | “No time to die: An in-depth analysis of James Bond's exposure to infectious agents” The conclusions and acknowledgments are great: “There was no specific funding for this project. Given the futility of its academic value, this is deemed entirely appropriate by all authors.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893921002167 | 0 | 12,300 | 3 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpxwav | iwpab7f | 1,668,693,710 | 1,668,677,572 | 16 | 11 | http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/sillymolecules/birds.pdf It was written to show that a predatory journal would accept anything. | The Parachute Trial (also a BMJ Christmas issue) https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 The point of the paper is the importance of criticality and context | 1 | 16,138 | 1.454545 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwp6d7f | iwpxwav | 1,668,673,987 | 1,668,693,710 | 9 | 16 | The BMJ’s case report where a guy brings a surprise visitor in his backpack to hospital. Worth the paywall. When patients’ priorities conflict with those of their medical team; a challenging case of a bleeding patient and his dying pet https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/1/e237942?rss=1 | http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/sillymolecules/birds.pdf It was written to show that a predatory journal would accept anything. | 0 | 19,723 | 1.777778 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpxwav | iwplued | 1,668,693,710 | 1,668,686,962 | 16 | 9 | http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/sillymolecules/birds.pdf It was written to show that a predatory journal would accept anything. | "Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List" https://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam | 1 | 6,748 | 1.777778 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpe084 | iwpxwav | 1,668,680,932 | 1,668,693,710 | 6 | 16 | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260800015_Structural_and_electronic_properties_of_chiral_single-wall_copper_nanotubes Enjoy the abstract. | http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/sillymolecules/birds.pdf It was written to show that a predatory journal would accept anything. | 0 | 12,778 | 2.666667 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpl3sh | iwpxwav | 1,668,686,470 | 1,668,693,710 | 6 | 16 | I read one about Harry Potter FanFiction and the fight against heteronormativity. Made decent arguments🪄🧙♂️ | http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/sillymolecules/birds.pdf It was written to show that a predatory journal would accept anything. | 0 | 7,240 | 2.666667 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpab7f | iwq3cb6 | 1,668,677,572 | 1,668,696,195 | 11 | 15 | The Parachute Trial (also a BMJ Christmas issue) https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 The point of the paper is the importance of criticality and context | "The Unsuccessful Treatment of a Case of Writer's Block" has to be in there somewhere. It's a short read ;) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311997/ | 0 | 18,623 | 1.363636 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwq3cb6 | iwp6d7f | 1,668,696,195 | 1,668,673,987 | 15 | 9 | "The Unsuccessful Treatment of a Case of Writer's Block" has to be in there somewhere. It's a short read ;) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311997/ | The BMJ’s case report where a guy brings a surprise visitor in his backpack to hospital. Worth the paywall. When patients’ priorities conflict with those of their medical team; a challenging case of a bleeding patient and his dying pet https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/1/e237942?rss=1 | 1 | 22,208 | 1.666667 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwplued | iwq3cb6 | 1,668,686,962 | 1,668,696,195 | 9 | 15 | "Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List" https://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam | "The Unsuccessful Treatment of a Case of Writer's Block" has to be in there somewhere. It's a short read ;) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311997/ | 0 | 9,233 | 1.666667 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwq3cb6 | iwpe084 | 1,668,696,195 | 1,668,680,932 | 15 | 6 | "The Unsuccessful Treatment of a Case of Writer's Block" has to be in there somewhere. It's a short read ;) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311997/ | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260800015_Structural_and_electronic_properties_of_chiral_single-wall_copper_nanotubes Enjoy the abstract. | 1 | 15,263 | 2.5 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwq3cb6 | iwpl3sh | 1,668,696,195 | 1,668,686,470 | 15 | 6 | "The Unsuccessful Treatment of a Case of Writer's Block" has to be in there somewhere. It's a short read ;) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311997/ | I read one about Harry Potter FanFiction and the fight against heteronormativity. Made decent arguments🪄🧙♂️ | 1 | 9,725 | 2.5 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpab7f | iwp6d7f | 1,668,677,572 | 1,668,673,987 | 11 | 9 | The Parachute Trial (also a BMJ Christmas issue) https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 The point of the paper is the importance of criticality and context | The BMJ’s case report where a guy brings a surprise visitor in his backpack to hospital. Worth the paywall. When patients’ priorities conflict with those of their medical team; a challenging case of a bleeding patient and his dying pet https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/1/e237942?rss=1 | 1 | 3,585 | 1.222222 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpe084 | iwplued | 1,668,680,932 | 1,668,686,962 | 6 | 9 | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260800015_Structural_and_electronic_properties_of_chiral_single-wall_copper_nanotubes Enjoy the abstract. | "Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List" https://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam | 0 | 6,030 | 1.5 |
yxijgd | askacademia_train | 0.99 | Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. | iwpl3sh | iwplued | 1,668,686,470 | 1,668,686,962 | 6 | 9 | I read one about Harry Potter FanFiction and the fight against heteronormativity. Made decent arguments🪄🧙♂️ | "Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List" https://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam | 0 | 492 | 1.5 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvm6w2g | fvmeye5 | 1,592,810,470 | 1,592,818,632 | 47 | 207 | Interesting, because all the doctors and soliders (I'm a assuming that's what you mean by vet - i dont know any veterinarians) I know also complain about their jobs about as much as academics. People complain about their jobs that's the way it is, also many answers here are directed at students and there an attempt possibly even a responsibility to provide a reality check to them. | Also, this is reddit. People come here to complain. People who are happy with their jobs are, well, happy practicing their jobs. Don’t think reddit provides a full picture. | 0 | 8,162 | 4.404255 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmeye5 | fvm7s2x | 1,592,818,632 | 1,592,811,304 | 207 | 42 | Also, this is reddit. People come here to complain. People who are happy with their jobs are, well, happy practicing their jobs. Don’t think reddit provides a full picture. | The analogy I can make is politics; just because a country is politically divided and you see protests doesn’t mean people “hate” their country; in fact most of those people wouldn’t even imagine living anywhere else. We often time vent about many shortcomings in our fields and how to improve processes, but many of us wouldn’t trade a second of our job, whether it’s conducting research in our private time or helping our students, with any other job. Witnesses how this pandemic has made many of us immensely miss our office and conversations with our students. | 1 | 7,328 | 4.928571 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmeye5 | fvmc4to | 1,592,818,632 | 1,592,815,660 | 207 | 23 | Also, this is reddit. People come here to complain. People who are happy with their jobs are, well, happy practicing their jobs. Don’t think reddit provides a full picture. | Well, I complain because our administration constantly pays lip service to student success and demands faculty do more and more to prevent any student losses, meanwhile systematically slashing any resources that would help this cause by removing teaching assistant funding, increasing class sizes, lowering standards, tightening department budgets, bloating administration salaries and positions, reducing full time faculty, eliminating or "streamlining" technical supports (to the point now where you have to log in each time you would like to access the unreliable internet that times out within an hour), funneling money into sports and another new "virtual reality" lab that no one will use while the advising office has caseloads of 500+ students for each position, etc. etc. I'm sorry to say that I believe the president of our university almost identically mirrors the president of our country, but in a 5 foot tall woman's body. Higher education is run like the rest of the failing, greedy, capitalist corporations in our country, and it is not a model that is sustainable longterm for the mental health of those involved. | 1 | 2,972 | 9 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmeye5 | fvmaajs | 1,592,818,632 | 1,592,813,781 | 207 | 19 | Also, this is reddit. People come here to complain. People who are happy with their jobs are, well, happy practicing their jobs. Don’t think reddit provides a full picture. | I work at a vet school, and the vets complain just as much about hours and pay and the way clients treat them... like academics, just because you complain doesn’t mean you don’t love your job and believe your work makes a difference. | 1 | 4,851 | 10.894737 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvm6w2g | fvmkmji | 1,592,810,470 | 1,592,824,233 | 47 | 73 | Interesting, because all the doctors and soliders (I'm a assuming that's what you mean by vet - i dont know any veterinarians) I know also complain about their jobs about as much as academics. People complain about their jobs that's the way it is, also many answers here are directed at students and there an attempt possibly even a responsibility to provide a reality check to them. | The issue is actually pretty straightforward. We - on the whole - love our research, and love our teaching. However, we work in a system which is administered by people who don't actually value those two things particularly. The metrics we are gauged against are not good metrics of performance or achievement. The people who manage us are not trying to help us improve in those two things, but to manoeuvre us to increase our ratings on these crappy metrics in more cost efficient and profit-making ways (profit for the organisation, not the people doing the work). The pay structure in academia has stagnated on the academic scales, while senior management pay rises have been ludicrous. There has been a drive toward the casualisation of staff, whereby trying to get contracts to employ colleagues on permanent (US TT) style contracts is ever harder, and instead we expect junior staff to exist on a sequence of fixed-term contracts with limited opportunities to climb the - already deflated - pay spines, and, as a result of their temporary contract status, hinder their ability to even apply for grants which might help them find better positions. In terms of research funding, the amount of funding becoming available has been cut and cut. The methods of allocating funding have become comical. For example, int the UK, the Natural Environment Research Council, who award all government funding for geology, earth sciences, environmental sciences, etc had so many people applying for funding, and so little money to give out that they started requiring universities to filter who was applying., So now to apply to NERC you have to first of all go through an internal review process. And many universities are limited in the number of grants they can submit each round (perhaps as few as 1 or 2). So you can be in a situation where you ahve a department of 10 or 15 people, but only one of you can submit a proposal to NERC each round. Once you get through that filter your success rate at the NERC panel is currently about 7 or 8%. Proposals are graded from 1-10. In the past if you scored a 7 or 8 you had a fighting chance of getting funded. These days if you don't have a 9 you have no chance, and even a 9 just becomes a roll of the dice as to whether you get fuinded. Our work - when we do publish it - gets used by publishers to sustain a toxic model of publishing houses; our grants get squeezed for publication fees, while our university libraries get charged to access the publications that we end up having to pay to publish. The HE sector got co-opted by suits in the 90s and they are milking it to death. That said, there are few other opportunities for me to work in my field, and no other opportunities for me to teach at this level. | 0 | 13,763 | 1.553191 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmkmji | fvm7s2x | 1,592,824,233 | 1,592,811,304 | 73 | 42 | The issue is actually pretty straightforward. We - on the whole - love our research, and love our teaching. However, we work in a system which is administered by people who don't actually value those two things particularly. The metrics we are gauged against are not good metrics of performance or achievement. The people who manage us are not trying to help us improve in those two things, but to manoeuvre us to increase our ratings on these crappy metrics in more cost efficient and profit-making ways (profit for the organisation, not the people doing the work). The pay structure in academia has stagnated on the academic scales, while senior management pay rises have been ludicrous. There has been a drive toward the casualisation of staff, whereby trying to get contracts to employ colleagues on permanent (US TT) style contracts is ever harder, and instead we expect junior staff to exist on a sequence of fixed-term contracts with limited opportunities to climb the - already deflated - pay spines, and, as a result of their temporary contract status, hinder their ability to even apply for grants which might help them find better positions. In terms of research funding, the amount of funding becoming available has been cut and cut. The methods of allocating funding have become comical. For example, int the UK, the Natural Environment Research Council, who award all government funding for geology, earth sciences, environmental sciences, etc had so many people applying for funding, and so little money to give out that they started requiring universities to filter who was applying., So now to apply to NERC you have to first of all go through an internal review process. And many universities are limited in the number of grants they can submit each round (perhaps as few as 1 or 2). So you can be in a situation where you ahve a department of 10 or 15 people, but only one of you can submit a proposal to NERC each round. Once you get through that filter your success rate at the NERC panel is currently about 7 or 8%. Proposals are graded from 1-10. In the past if you scored a 7 or 8 you had a fighting chance of getting funded. These days if you don't have a 9 you have no chance, and even a 9 just becomes a roll of the dice as to whether you get fuinded. Our work - when we do publish it - gets used by publishers to sustain a toxic model of publishing houses; our grants get squeezed for publication fees, while our university libraries get charged to access the publications that we end up having to pay to publish. The HE sector got co-opted by suits in the 90s and they are milking it to death. That said, there are few other opportunities for me to work in my field, and no other opportunities for me to teach at this level. | The analogy I can make is politics; just because a country is politically divided and you see protests doesn’t mean people “hate” their country; in fact most of those people wouldn’t even imagine living anywhere else. We often time vent about many shortcomings in our fields and how to improve processes, but many of us wouldn’t trade a second of our job, whether it’s conducting research in our private time or helping our students, with any other job. Witnesses how this pandemic has made many of us immensely miss our office and conversations with our students. | 1 | 12,929 | 1.738095 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmjxfe | fvmkmji | 1,592,823,590 | 1,592,824,233 | 28 | 73 | I wouldn't say hated, but it gives you very little in return. Like any intense job, academia has irregular hours, crazy supervisors and toxic competitive colleagues. Like any service job, you deal with customers (students) who can easily leave a bad review for subjective reasons. It does not give you a high salary or job security, at least not for a while. So all you're left with is the expectation of prestige. But to faculty, unless you're very established, you're easily replaceable. To entitled students, they will always want more. Not all students are that way, but there are some that will complain if you take longer than a few hours to respond, or don't give them the highest mark, or have a lecture at 8am. | The issue is actually pretty straightforward. We - on the whole - love our research, and love our teaching. However, we work in a system which is administered by people who don't actually value those two things particularly. The metrics we are gauged against are not good metrics of performance or achievement. The people who manage us are not trying to help us improve in those two things, but to manoeuvre us to increase our ratings on these crappy metrics in more cost efficient and profit-making ways (profit for the organisation, not the people doing the work). The pay structure in academia has stagnated on the academic scales, while senior management pay rises have been ludicrous. There has been a drive toward the casualisation of staff, whereby trying to get contracts to employ colleagues on permanent (US TT) style contracts is ever harder, and instead we expect junior staff to exist on a sequence of fixed-term contracts with limited opportunities to climb the - already deflated - pay spines, and, as a result of their temporary contract status, hinder their ability to even apply for grants which might help them find better positions. In terms of research funding, the amount of funding becoming available has been cut and cut. The methods of allocating funding have become comical. For example, int the UK, the Natural Environment Research Council, who award all government funding for geology, earth sciences, environmental sciences, etc had so many people applying for funding, and so little money to give out that they started requiring universities to filter who was applying., So now to apply to NERC you have to first of all go through an internal review process. And many universities are limited in the number of grants they can submit each round (perhaps as few as 1 or 2). So you can be in a situation where you ahve a department of 10 or 15 people, but only one of you can submit a proposal to NERC each round. Once you get through that filter your success rate at the NERC panel is currently about 7 or 8%. Proposals are graded from 1-10. In the past if you scored a 7 or 8 you had a fighting chance of getting funded. These days if you don't have a 9 you have no chance, and even a 9 just becomes a roll of the dice as to whether you get fuinded. Our work - when we do publish it - gets used by publishers to sustain a toxic model of publishing houses; our grants get squeezed for publication fees, while our university libraries get charged to access the publications that we end up having to pay to publish. The HE sector got co-opted by suits in the 90s and they are milking it to death. That said, there are few other opportunities for me to work in my field, and no other opportunities for me to teach at this level. | 0 | 643 | 2.607143 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmkmji | fvmc4to | 1,592,824,233 | 1,592,815,660 | 73 | 23 | The issue is actually pretty straightforward. We - on the whole - love our research, and love our teaching. However, we work in a system which is administered by people who don't actually value those two things particularly. The metrics we are gauged against are not good metrics of performance or achievement. The people who manage us are not trying to help us improve in those two things, but to manoeuvre us to increase our ratings on these crappy metrics in more cost efficient and profit-making ways (profit for the organisation, not the people doing the work). The pay structure in academia has stagnated on the academic scales, while senior management pay rises have been ludicrous. There has been a drive toward the casualisation of staff, whereby trying to get contracts to employ colleagues on permanent (US TT) style contracts is ever harder, and instead we expect junior staff to exist on a sequence of fixed-term contracts with limited opportunities to climb the - already deflated - pay spines, and, as a result of their temporary contract status, hinder their ability to even apply for grants which might help them find better positions. In terms of research funding, the amount of funding becoming available has been cut and cut. The methods of allocating funding have become comical. For example, int the UK, the Natural Environment Research Council, who award all government funding for geology, earth sciences, environmental sciences, etc had so many people applying for funding, and so little money to give out that they started requiring universities to filter who was applying., So now to apply to NERC you have to first of all go through an internal review process. And many universities are limited in the number of grants they can submit each round (perhaps as few as 1 or 2). So you can be in a situation where you ahve a department of 10 or 15 people, but only one of you can submit a proposal to NERC each round. Once you get through that filter your success rate at the NERC panel is currently about 7 or 8%. Proposals are graded from 1-10. In the past if you scored a 7 or 8 you had a fighting chance of getting funded. These days if you don't have a 9 you have no chance, and even a 9 just becomes a roll of the dice as to whether you get fuinded. Our work - when we do publish it - gets used by publishers to sustain a toxic model of publishing houses; our grants get squeezed for publication fees, while our university libraries get charged to access the publications that we end up having to pay to publish. The HE sector got co-opted by suits in the 90s and they are milking it to death. That said, there are few other opportunities for me to work in my field, and no other opportunities for me to teach at this level. | Well, I complain because our administration constantly pays lip service to student success and demands faculty do more and more to prevent any student losses, meanwhile systematically slashing any resources that would help this cause by removing teaching assistant funding, increasing class sizes, lowering standards, tightening department budgets, bloating administration salaries and positions, reducing full time faculty, eliminating or "streamlining" technical supports (to the point now where you have to log in each time you would like to access the unreliable internet that times out within an hour), funneling money into sports and another new "virtual reality" lab that no one will use while the advising office has caseloads of 500+ students for each position, etc. etc. I'm sorry to say that I believe the president of our university almost identically mirrors the president of our country, but in a 5 foot tall woman's body. Higher education is run like the rest of the failing, greedy, capitalist corporations in our country, and it is not a model that is sustainable longterm for the mental health of those involved. | 1 | 8,573 | 3.173913 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmkmji | fvmaajs | 1,592,824,233 | 1,592,813,781 | 73 | 19 | The issue is actually pretty straightforward. We - on the whole - love our research, and love our teaching. However, we work in a system which is administered by people who don't actually value those two things particularly. The metrics we are gauged against are not good metrics of performance or achievement. The people who manage us are not trying to help us improve in those two things, but to manoeuvre us to increase our ratings on these crappy metrics in more cost efficient and profit-making ways (profit for the organisation, not the people doing the work). The pay structure in academia has stagnated on the academic scales, while senior management pay rises have been ludicrous. There has been a drive toward the casualisation of staff, whereby trying to get contracts to employ colleagues on permanent (US TT) style contracts is ever harder, and instead we expect junior staff to exist on a sequence of fixed-term contracts with limited opportunities to climb the - already deflated - pay spines, and, as a result of their temporary contract status, hinder their ability to even apply for grants which might help them find better positions. In terms of research funding, the amount of funding becoming available has been cut and cut. The methods of allocating funding have become comical. For example, int the UK, the Natural Environment Research Council, who award all government funding for geology, earth sciences, environmental sciences, etc had so many people applying for funding, and so little money to give out that they started requiring universities to filter who was applying., So now to apply to NERC you have to first of all go through an internal review process. And many universities are limited in the number of grants they can submit each round (perhaps as few as 1 or 2). So you can be in a situation where you ahve a department of 10 or 15 people, but only one of you can submit a proposal to NERC each round. Once you get through that filter your success rate at the NERC panel is currently about 7 or 8%. Proposals are graded from 1-10. In the past if you scored a 7 or 8 you had a fighting chance of getting funded. These days if you don't have a 9 you have no chance, and even a 9 just becomes a roll of the dice as to whether you get fuinded. Our work - when we do publish it - gets used by publishers to sustain a toxic model of publishing houses; our grants get squeezed for publication fees, while our university libraries get charged to access the publications that we end up having to pay to publish. The HE sector got co-opted by suits in the 90s and they are milking it to death. That said, there are few other opportunities for me to work in my field, and no other opportunities for me to teach at this level. | I work at a vet school, and the vets complain just as much about hours and pay and the way clients treat them... like academics, just because you complain doesn’t mean you don’t love your job and believe your work makes a difference. | 1 | 10,452 | 3.842105 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmh333 | fvmkmji | 1,592,820,836 | 1,592,824,233 | 16 | 73 | Reddit gives you a very skewed perspective on the matter. Many people use reddit to vent about the negative aspects of academia. In reality, many people are happy - with their PIs, with their labmates, their projects, their fellow faculty members, etc. Those people aren't posting here. That's not to say negative environments don't exist. Just remember that a lot of people use reddit to vent, and while they deserve a place to vent, they are not representative in general. | The issue is actually pretty straightforward. We - on the whole - love our research, and love our teaching. However, we work in a system which is administered by people who don't actually value those two things particularly. The metrics we are gauged against are not good metrics of performance or achievement. The people who manage us are not trying to help us improve in those two things, but to manoeuvre us to increase our ratings on these crappy metrics in more cost efficient and profit-making ways (profit for the organisation, not the people doing the work). The pay structure in academia has stagnated on the academic scales, while senior management pay rises have been ludicrous. There has been a drive toward the casualisation of staff, whereby trying to get contracts to employ colleagues on permanent (US TT) style contracts is ever harder, and instead we expect junior staff to exist on a sequence of fixed-term contracts with limited opportunities to climb the - already deflated - pay spines, and, as a result of their temporary contract status, hinder their ability to even apply for grants which might help them find better positions. In terms of research funding, the amount of funding becoming available has been cut and cut. The methods of allocating funding have become comical. For example, int the UK, the Natural Environment Research Council, who award all government funding for geology, earth sciences, environmental sciences, etc had so many people applying for funding, and so little money to give out that they started requiring universities to filter who was applying., So now to apply to NERC you have to first of all go through an internal review process. And many universities are limited in the number of grants they can submit each round (perhaps as few as 1 or 2). So you can be in a situation where you ahve a department of 10 or 15 people, but only one of you can submit a proposal to NERC each round. Once you get through that filter your success rate at the NERC panel is currently about 7 or 8%. Proposals are graded from 1-10. In the past if you scored a 7 or 8 you had a fighting chance of getting funded. These days if you don't have a 9 you have no chance, and even a 9 just becomes a roll of the dice as to whether you get fuinded. Our work - when we do publish it - gets used by publishers to sustain a toxic model of publishing houses; our grants get squeezed for publication fees, while our university libraries get charged to access the publications that we end up having to pay to publish. The HE sector got co-opted by suits in the 90s and they are milking it to death. That said, there are few other opportunities for me to work in my field, and no other opportunities for me to teach at this level. | 0 | 3,397 | 4.5625 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmc4to | fvmjxfe | 1,592,815,660 | 1,592,823,590 | 23 | 28 | Well, I complain because our administration constantly pays lip service to student success and demands faculty do more and more to prevent any student losses, meanwhile systematically slashing any resources that would help this cause by removing teaching assistant funding, increasing class sizes, lowering standards, tightening department budgets, bloating administration salaries and positions, reducing full time faculty, eliminating or "streamlining" technical supports (to the point now where you have to log in each time you would like to access the unreliable internet that times out within an hour), funneling money into sports and another new "virtual reality" lab that no one will use while the advising office has caseloads of 500+ students for each position, etc. etc. I'm sorry to say that I believe the president of our university almost identically mirrors the president of our country, but in a 5 foot tall woman's body. Higher education is run like the rest of the failing, greedy, capitalist corporations in our country, and it is not a model that is sustainable longterm for the mental health of those involved. | I wouldn't say hated, but it gives you very little in return. Like any intense job, academia has irregular hours, crazy supervisors and toxic competitive colleagues. Like any service job, you deal with customers (students) who can easily leave a bad review for subjective reasons. It does not give you a high salary or job security, at least not for a while. So all you're left with is the expectation of prestige. But to faculty, unless you're very established, you're easily replaceable. To entitled students, they will always want more. Not all students are that way, but there are some that will complain if you take longer than a few hours to respond, or don't give them the highest mark, or have a lecture at 8am. | 0 | 7,930 | 1.217391 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmaajs | fvmjxfe | 1,592,813,781 | 1,592,823,590 | 19 | 28 | I work at a vet school, and the vets complain just as much about hours and pay and the way clients treat them... like academics, just because you complain doesn’t mean you don’t love your job and believe your work makes a difference. | I wouldn't say hated, but it gives you very little in return. Like any intense job, academia has irregular hours, crazy supervisors and toxic competitive colleagues. Like any service job, you deal with customers (students) who can easily leave a bad review for subjective reasons. It does not give you a high salary or job security, at least not for a while. So all you're left with is the expectation of prestige. But to faculty, unless you're very established, you're easily replaceable. To entitled students, they will always want more. Not all students are that way, but there are some that will complain if you take longer than a few hours to respond, or don't give them the highest mark, or have a lecture at 8am. | 0 | 9,809 | 1.473684 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmjxfe | fvmh333 | 1,592,823,590 | 1,592,820,836 | 28 | 16 | I wouldn't say hated, but it gives you very little in return. Like any intense job, academia has irregular hours, crazy supervisors and toxic competitive colleagues. Like any service job, you deal with customers (students) who can easily leave a bad review for subjective reasons. It does not give you a high salary or job security, at least not for a while. So all you're left with is the expectation of prestige. But to faculty, unless you're very established, you're easily replaceable. To entitled students, they will always want more. Not all students are that way, but there are some that will complain if you take longer than a few hours to respond, or don't give them the highest mark, or have a lecture at 8am. | Reddit gives you a very skewed perspective on the matter. Many people use reddit to vent about the negative aspects of academia. In reality, many people are happy - with their PIs, with their labmates, their projects, their fellow faculty members, etc. Those people aren't posting here. That's not to say negative environments don't exist. Just remember that a lot of people use reddit to vent, and while they deserve a place to vent, they are not representative in general. | 1 | 2,754 | 1.75 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmc4to | fvmaajs | 1,592,815,660 | 1,592,813,781 | 23 | 19 | Well, I complain because our administration constantly pays lip service to student success and demands faculty do more and more to prevent any student losses, meanwhile systematically slashing any resources that would help this cause by removing teaching assistant funding, increasing class sizes, lowering standards, tightening department budgets, bloating administration salaries and positions, reducing full time faculty, eliminating or "streamlining" technical supports (to the point now where you have to log in each time you would like to access the unreliable internet that times out within an hour), funneling money into sports and another new "virtual reality" lab that no one will use while the advising office has caseloads of 500+ students for each position, etc. etc. I'm sorry to say that I believe the president of our university almost identically mirrors the president of our country, but in a 5 foot tall woman's body. Higher education is run like the rest of the failing, greedy, capitalist corporations in our country, and it is not a model that is sustainable longterm for the mental health of those involved. | I work at a vet school, and the vets complain just as much about hours and pay and the way clients treat them... like academics, just because you complain doesn’t mean you don’t love your job and believe your work makes a difference. | 1 | 1,879 | 1.210526 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmxlh6 | fvn597j | 1,592,833,762 | 1,592,838,081 | 10 | 11 | I think there's few reasons. One is the discrepancy between what you thought you were going to do, and the reality of academia. As you say, when you're early in training you think you're going to be "charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place". People who value that goal can put up with the low pay relative to training because the goal seems so exciting and worthwhile. After being involved in the way research actually works and seeing the ability and behaviour of people who you once believed were the leaders in your field, it can be pretty disillusioning. Personally, I've ended up feeling that while I would love to be " charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place", I'm actually just throwing together research that fits within the purview of the current grant but contributes very little to the future of humanity. Another big difference between academia and lawyers/medical doctors is the stability. While in your early 20's the idea of having to work overseas and moving around doesn't seem like an issue and actually sounds exciting. By the time you're doing it, it gets a lot more difficult to put up with. There are parts of your life that really suffer, or just get a lot more difficult relative to the stable career of a lawyer/medical doctor. In those professions you can probably get a job in whatever city you want, and you get a long term salaried position rather than 2/3 year contracts. With respect to how it's perceived by the general public I think there's actually a lot of variability in the response. Plenty of people think being a researcher/professor is very impressive, but there are definitely people who think the way you mentioned. Maybe I'm cynical but I think a large part of that is to do with salary. To a large degree, people venerate professions that earn lots of money, and that's not really the situation for most academics. Also, people interact with lawyers and medical doctors in their daily lives so they personally benefit from that expertise directly, that's not the case for researchers. | The "why can't you just be happy like other professions" sentiment expressed in this post is Academic Administration propaganda.The sentiment of this post is basically how could academia be that bad that people complain all the time and have a bad attidude - people are unhappy for a reason! I just don't understand this sentiment - If doctor don't complain you think it's because they feel similar issues but just don't complain about it? No. Academics are unhappy/complaining for real reasons. If another profession had real reasons to complain they would too. Academia is structured with an intense hierarchy, where the salary range for the first ~15 years is between $35,000-50,000 (lab tech to postdoc) which covers zero years of experience to having a freaking PhD lol - very little material reward for increased education/experience. This breeds contempt in any profession! Since you're comparing other professions, imagine a lawyer needing a BA, then law school is 6 years (PhD timeline) and then you're still in a training position making 50 grand while other lawyers tell you that you should just be happy you're carrying out your amazing country's constitution yet with only a chance to make the big lawyer bucks and the goal job later. It's a gamble that doesn't pay off for a lot of people in academia so there is of course complaints. "Just be happy you do what you love" "your still in a training position" "your degree is basically free so you don't have loans to pay off (read: so you don't deserve more money)etc are just excuses to not fix a broken system and frankly I find oppressive illogical and demeaning. I said what I said. Then 1 in 20 postdocs or whatever pops out to be a professor somewhere, so there is a lot of "failure" and/or struggling to succeed so of course there is widespread bitterness. Then those new professors instantly justify all of their hardships because they made it(!) making it difficult to share empathy with their lab members because they toughed it out why can't you. I had a postdoc friend who complained constantly about how little money they made and that the "training position" excuse was hogwash. Then he became a professor and bemoaned how expensive postdocs were and how little they accomplish and how he has 10x responsibilities now as professor but only makes 2x as much as he did as a postdoc. Like dude how did you completely forget what it was like to be a postdoc less than a year ago?? Yes you're on the other side but this should show you how broken the system is not that you should resent your lab members. The cycle continues. I completely agree that having a more positive attitude about your workplace and profession is helpful all around(!) but I strongly disagree that it also means you should be content with your system - we need change and people are unhappy for real reasons, not because we don't have mental fortitude to be happy like medical doctors do. | 0 | 4,319 | 1.1 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvmq6ih | fvmxlh6 | 1,592,828,838 | 1,592,833,762 | 8 | 10 | I think you might be dealing with a biased sample by associating with the academic community. If you head over to r/law or r/medicine, you get the same series of complaints (overworked, underpaid, hard to get in/not enough jobs, etc.). Basically people just complain no matter what they do, and Reddit amplifies the complainers. | I think there's few reasons. One is the discrepancy between what you thought you were going to do, and the reality of academia. As you say, when you're early in training you think you're going to be "charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place". People who value that goal can put up with the low pay relative to training because the goal seems so exciting and worthwhile. After being involved in the way research actually works and seeing the ability and behaviour of people who you once believed were the leaders in your field, it can be pretty disillusioning. Personally, I've ended up feeling that while I would love to be " charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place", I'm actually just throwing together research that fits within the purview of the current grant but contributes very little to the future of humanity. Another big difference between academia and lawyers/medical doctors is the stability. While in your early 20's the idea of having to work overseas and moving around doesn't seem like an issue and actually sounds exciting. By the time you're doing it, it gets a lot more difficult to put up with. There are parts of your life that really suffer, or just get a lot more difficult relative to the stable career of a lawyer/medical doctor. In those professions you can probably get a job in whatever city you want, and you get a long term salaried position rather than 2/3 year contracts. With respect to how it's perceived by the general public I think there's actually a lot of variability in the response. Plenty of people think being a researcher/professor is very impressive, but there are definitely people who think the way you mentioned. Maybe I'm cynical but I think a large part of that is to do with salary. To a large degree, people venerate professions that earn lots of money, and that's not really the situation for most academics. Also, people interact with lawyers and medical doctors in their daily lives so they personally benefit from that expertise directly, that's not the case for researchers. | 0 | 4,924 | 1.25 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvms098 | fvmxlh6 | 1,592,830,153 | 1,592,833,762 | 8 | 10 | I can’t say much about academics themselves but in regard to public perception, I think that the growing price of (American) colleges cause professors to get some of the residual resentment. It also leads to a huge misunderstanding of what an academic does and how much they get paid? The general public knows very little about the research aspect of academia and judge academics mostly on pedagogy. And when college is seen as hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of “investment,” classes and teachers seem more like a product. There is this idea that academics are supposed to serve “students” rather than the actual material and pedagogy but surprise! That’s not what actually happens and lots of times students fail. And instead of blaming failiure on the lack of prep in primary and secondary education, academics themeselvs get the blame. Then general public gets this idea that academics are just “pompus people” who are out of touch and who makes SO much money only to “fail” students. Doctors may be pompus but at least they save lives. And lawyers? If I’m being honest, they aren’t that publically esteemed either because of the terror that they are all liars that will do any means necessary. The last thing I want to add is propoganda...how many tv shows, commercials, and public dispalys feature doctors, lawyers, and detectives? The answer is a lot. I can name 5 doctor shows without thinking too hard. But academia? There is little to no mainstream propoganda for academics. The closest thing is big bang theory and....yea | I think there's few reasons. One is the discrepancy between what you thought you were going to do, and the reality of academia. As you say, when you're early in training you think you're going to be "charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place". People who value that goal can put up with the low pay relative to training because the goal seems so exciting and worthwhile. After being involved in the way research actually works and seeing the ability and behaviour of people who you once believed were the leaders in your field, it can be pretty disillusioning. Personally, I've ended up feeling that while I would love to be " charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place", I'm actually just throwing together research that fits within the purview of the current grant but contributes very little to the future of humanity. Another big difference between academia and lawyers/medical doctors is the stability. While in your early 20's the idea of having to work overseas and moving around doesn't seem like an issue and actually sounds exciting. By the time you're doing it, it gets a lot more difficult to put up with. There are parts of your life that really suffer, or just get a lot more difficult relative to the stable career of a lawyer/medical doctor. In those professions you can probably get a job in whatever city you want, and you get a long term salaried position rather than 2/3 year contracts. With respect to how it's perceived by the general public I think there's actually a lot of variability in the response. Plenty of people think being a researcher/professor is very impressive, but there are definitely people who think the way you mentioned. Maybe I'm cynical but I think a large part of that is to do with salary. To a large degree, people venerate professions that earn lots of money, and that's not really the situation for most academics. Also, people interact with lawyers and medical doctors in their daily lives so they personally benefit from that expertise directly, that's not the case for researchers. | 0 | 3,609 | 1.25 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvn597j | fvmq6ih | 1,592,838,081 | 1,592,828,838 | 11 | 8 | The "why can't you just be happy like other professions" sentiment expressed in this post is Academic Administration propaganda.The sentiment of this post is basically how could academia be that bad that people complain all the time and have a bad attidude - people are unhappy for a reason! I just don't understand this sentiment - If doctor don't complain you think it's because they feel similar issues but just don't complain about it? No. Academics are unhappy/complaining for real reasons. If another profession had real reasons to complain they would too. Academia is structured with an intense hierarchy, where the salary range for the first ~15 years is between $35,000-50,000 (lab tech to postdoc) which covers zero years of experience to having a freaking PhD lol - very little material reward for increased education/experience. This breeds contempt in any profession! Since you're comparing other professions, imagine a lawyer needing a BA, then law school is 6 years (PhD timeline) and then you're still in a training position making 50 grand while other lawyers tell you that you should just be happy you're carrying out your amazing country's constitution yet with only a chance to make the big lawyer bucks and the goal job later. It's a gamble that doesn't pay off for a lot of people in academia so there is of course complaints. "Just be happy you do what you love" "your still in a training position" "your degree is basically free so you don't have loans to pay off (read: so you don't deserve more money)etc are just excuses to not fix a broken system and frankly I find oppressive illogical and demeaning. I said what I said. Then 1 in 20 postdocs or whatever pops out to be a professor somewhere, so there is a lot of "failure" and/or struggling to succeed so of course there is widespread bitterness. Then those new professors instantly justify all of their hardships because they made it(!) making it difficult to share empathy with their lab members because they toughed it out why can't you. I had a postdoc friend who complained constantly about how little money they made and that the "training position" excuse was hogwash. Then he became a professor and bemoaned how expensive postdocs were and how little they accomplish and how he has 10x responsibilities now as professor but only makes 2x as much as he did as a postdoc. Like dude how did you completely forget what it was like to be a postdoc less than a year ago?? Yes you're on the other side but this should show you how broken the system is not that you should resent your lab members. The cycle continues. I completely agree that having a more positive attitude about your workplace and profession is helpful all around(!) but I strongly disagree that it also means you should be content with your system - we need change and people are unhappy for real reasons, not because we don't have mental fortitude to be happy like medical doctors do. | I think you might be dealing with a biased sample by associating with the academic community. If you head over to r/law or r/medicine, you get the same series of complaints (overworked, underpaid, hard to get in/not enough jobs, etc.). Basically people just complain no matter what they do, and Reddit amplifies the complainers. | 1 | 9,243 | 1.375 |
hdnbiv | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? | fvn597j | fvms098 | 1,592,838,081 | 1,592,830,153 | 11 | 8 | The "why can't you just be happy like other professions" sentiment expressed in this post is Academic Administration propaganda.The sentiment of this post is basically how could academia be that bad that people complain all the time and have a bad attidude - people are unhappy for a reason! I just don't understand this sentiment - If doctor don't complain you think it's because they feel similar issues but just don't complain about it? No. Academics are unhappy/complaining for real reasons. If another profession had real reasons to complain they would too. Academia is structured with an intense hierarchy, where the salary range for the first ~15 years is between $35,000-50,000 (lab tech to postdoc) which covers zero years of experience to having a freaking PhD lol - very little material reward for increased education/experience. This breeds contempt in any profession! Since you're comparing other professions, imagine a lawyer needing a BA, then law school is 6 years (PhD timeline) and then you're still in a training position making 50 grand while other lawyers tell you that you should just be happy you're carrying out your amazing country's constitution yet with only a chance to make the big lawyer bucks and the goal job later. It's a gamble that doesn't pay off for a lot of people in academia so there is of course complaints. "Just be happy you do what you love" "your still in a training position" "your degree is basically free so you don't have loans to pay off (read: so you don't deserve more money)etc are just excuses to not fix a broken system and frankly I find oppressive illogical and demeaning. I said what I said. Then 1 in 20 postdocs or whatever pops out to be a professor somewhere, so there is a lot of "failure" and/or struggling to succeed so of course there is widespread bitterness. Then those new professors instantly justify all of their hardships because they made it(!) making it difficult to share empathy with their lab members because they toughed it out why can't you. I had a postdoc friend who complained constantly about how little money they made and that the "training position" excuse was hogwash. Then he became a professor and bemoaned how expensive postdocs were and how little they accomplish and how he has 10x responsibilities now as professor but only makes 2x as much as he did as a postdoc. Like dude how did you completely forget what it was like to be a postdoc less than a year ago?? Yes you're on the other side but this should show you how broken the system is not that you should resent your lab members. The cycle continues. I completely agree that having a more positive attitude about your workplace and profession is helpful all around(!) but I strongly disagree that it also means you should be content with your system - we need change and people are unhappy for real reasons, not because we don't have mental fortitude to be happy like medical doctors do. | I can’t say much about academics themselves but in regard to public perception, I think that the growing price of (American) colleges cause professors to get some of the residual resentment. It also leads to a huge misunderstanding of what an academic does and how much they get paid? The general public knows very little about the research aspect of academia and judge academics mostly on pedagogy. And when college is seen as hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of “investment,” classes and teachers seem more like a product. There is this idea that academics are supposed to serve “students” rather than the actual material and pedagogy but surprise! That’s not what actually happens and lots of times students fail. And instead of blaming failiure on the lack of prep in primary and secondary education, academics themeselvs get the blame. Then general public gets this idea that academics are just “pompus people” who are out of touch and who makes SO much money only to “fail” students. Doctors may be pompus but at least they save lives. And lawyers? If I’m being honest, they aren’t that publically esteemed either because of the terror that they are all liars that will do any means necessary. The last thing I want to add is propoganda...how many tv shows, commercials, and public dispalys feature doctors, lawyers, and detectives? The answer is a lot. I can name 5 doctor shows without thinking too hard. But academia? There is little to no mainstream propoganda for academics. The closest thing is big bang theory and....yea | 1 | 7,928 | 1.375 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr7sak5 | fr7v1dh | 1,589,955,806 | 1,589,958,243 | 224 | 273 | Depends on the author. I’ve found a few submissions that when reading the papers that were cited, it was clear the author did not understand/read the cited paper. | Sometimes I only read parts of it that is relevant to my writing, not necessarily the whole content. | 0 | 2,437 | 1.21875 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr80et6 | fr7sak5 | 1,589,963,299 | 1,589,955,806 | 264 | 224 | Looking at papers that cite mine, there are many where it’s clear they have only read the title and misinterpreted it. | Depends on the author. I’ve found a few submissions that when reading the papers that were cited, it was clear the author did not understand/read the cited paper. | 1 | 7,493 | 1.178571 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr80et6 | fr7yrzj | 1,589,963,299 | 1,589,961,693 | 264 | 74 | Looking at papers that cite mine, there are many where it’s clear they have only read the title and misinterpreted it. | I've always wondered about this myself. In my case, what typically ends up happening is that I would have read about 30% of the papers I cite in detail and are closely related to the central points being made in the paper. Another 30% that I have read but not in great detail. This leaves about 40% of the papers where I have only read the "relevant bits" and are my attempt to situate my work in a broader setting. If the paper has a large number of authors, then sometimes coauthors cite papers I have never read based on their expertise and I trust that they are relevant and cited appropriately. I'm not saying this is the right/good way and I do worry I somehow screwed up in the citations I did not read in great detail. | 1 | 1,606 | 3.567568 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr80et6 | fr7v9j8 | 1,589,963,299 | 1,589,958,440 | 264 | 30 | Looking at papers that cite mine, there are many where it’s clear they have only read the title and misinterpreted it. | It really differs based on the field, even subfield. Some fields you are expected to cite every paper you looked at while writing, others you only cite papers that you take exact quotes from. It also depends what you’re citing it for; if it’s a situation where you’re citing work on an algorithm by someone you’ve previously collaborated with, you’ve probably read the paper in-depth and perhaps even discussed it with the author. If it’s the equivalent of a footnote where you just cite the paper in the introduction as evidence that someone else has looked at a similar topic before, you might have only even read the title. There isn’t really a single answer to this question. | 1 | 4,859 | 8.8 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr7yrzj | fr81a10 | 1,589,961,693 | 1,589,964,166 | 74 | 103 | I've always wondered about this myself. In my case, what typically ends up happening is that I would have read about 30% of the papers I cite in detail and are closely related to the central points being made in the paper. Another 30% that I have read but not in great detail. This leaves about 40% of the papers where I have only read the "relevant bits" and are my attempt to situate my work in a broader setting. If the paper has a large number of authors, then sometimes coauthors cite papers I have never read based on their expertise and I trust that they are relevant and cited appropriately. I'm not saying this is the right/good way and I do worry I somehow screwed up in the citations I did not read in great detail. | For long time, I thought I must read and understand every bit of the paper. It was a kind of idée fix for me. This was utterly devastating, and sometimes I couldn’t finish one paper in a week: it always felt that I didn’t read enough, that I don’t understand it fully, so I reread, start to procrastinate - and... you know the rest. Anyway, I guess, the most efficient way is to read diagonally and try to find the bits that suit tour purpose, not the rest of it. Most usually, I spend now from 15 to 40 minutes for one paper | 0 | 2,473 | 1.391892 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr81a10 | fr7v9j8 | 1,589,964,166 | 1,589,958,440 | 103 | 30 | For long time, I thought I must read and understand every bit of the paper. It was a kind of idée fix for me. This was utterly devastating, and sometimes I couldn’t finish one paper in a week: it always felt that I didn’t read enough, that I don’t understand it fully, so I reread, start to procrastinate - and... you know the rest. Anyway, I guess, the most efficient way is to read diagonally and try to find the bits that suit tour purpose, not the rest of it. Most usually, I spend now from 15 to 40 minutes for one paper | It really differs based on the field, even subfield. Some fields you are expected to cite every paper you looked at while writing, others you only cite papers that you take exact quotes from. It also depends what you’re citing it for; if it’s a situation where you’re citing work on an algorithm by someone you’ve previously collaborated with, you’ve probably read the paper in-depth and perhaps even discussed it with the author. If it’s the equivalent of a footnote where you just cite the paper in the introduction as evidence that someone else has looked at a similar topic before, you might have only even read the title. There isn’t really a single answer to this question. | 1 | 5,726 | 3.433333 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr80xbi | fr81a10 | 1,589,963,811 | 1,589,964,166 | 20 | 103 | depends on the type of paper and the point you are putting across through tge citation. if you are doing a literature review, reading all the papers is essential. however if you are just stating that this theory has been applied to other fields in the recent years, reading and understanding the abstract will do. The primary reason for citing is to show that whatever you are saying is backed up by peer reviewed papers. sometimes i read the abstract, methods and the conclusion of papers if i am in a rush. if the paper is good, figures often explain the results much better than the text. | For long time, I thought I must read and understand every bit of the paper. It was a kind of idée fix for me. This was utterly devastating, and sometimes I couldn’t finish one paper in a week: it always felt that I didn’t read enough, that I don’t understand it fully, so I reread, start to procrastinate - and... you know the rest. Anyway, I guess, the most efficient way is to read diagonally and try to find the bits that suit tour purpose, not the rest of it. Most usually, I spend now from 15 to 40 minutes for one paper | 0 | 355 | 5.15 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr81a10 | fr810rc | 1,589,964,166 | 1,589,963,907 | 103 | 13 | For long time, I thought I must read and understand every bit of the paper. It was a kind of idée fix for me. This was utterly devastating, and sometimes I couldn’t finish one paper in a week: it always felt that I didn’t read enough, that I don’t understand it fully, so I reread, start to procrastinate - and... you know the rest. Anyway, I guess, the most efficient way is to read diagonally and try to find the bits that suit tour purpose, not the rest of it. Most usually, I spend now from 15 to 40 minutes for one paper | The first time one of my papers was cited it had absolutely nothing to do with the paper, or even the sentence it was used as a citation for, other than the patient population was the same (cancer patients). | 1 | 259 | 7.923077 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr7yrzj | fr7v9j8 | 1,589,961,693 | 1,589,958,440 | 74 | 30 | I've always wondered about this myself. In my case, what typically ends up happening is that I would have read about 30% of the papers I cite in detail and are closely related to the central points being made in the paper. Another 30% that I have read but not in great detail. This leaves about 40% of the papers where I have only read the "relevant bits" and are my attempt to situate my work in a broader setting. If the paper has a large number of authors, then sometimes coauthors cite papers I have never read based on their expertise and I trust that they are relevant and cited appropriately. I'm not saying this is the right/good way and I do worry I somehow screwed up in the citations I did not read in great detail. | It really differs based on the field, even subfield. Some fields you are expected to cite every paper you looked at while writing, others you only cite papers that you take exact quotes from. It also depends what you’re citing it for; if it’s a situation where you’re citing work on an algorithm by someone you’ve previously collaborated with, you’ve probably read the paper in-depth and perhaps even discussed it with the author. If it’s the equivalent of a footnote where you just cite the paper in the introduction as evidence that someone else has looked at a similar topic before, you might have only even read the title. There isn’t really a single answer to this question. | 1 | 3,253 | 2.466667 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr86991 | fr80xbi | 1,589,969,262 | 1,589,963,811 | 24 | 20 | This is field dependent, but in biomed, no they don't. They'll give you answers like "I only read parts that are relevant, not the whole thing". This can usually be decoded as: I did a pubmed search for a thing I wanted to cite to flesh out my intro, saw a title I liked, maybe read the abstract, or even went as far as glancing at the figires. Or, I asked my friends if they know of people that worked on this, they sent me a paper and I looked at the title and abstract. That said, in a lot of biomed, you're lucky if every author on the paper actually even read the paper they're an 'author' on... nevermind other people's papers. | depends on the type of paper and the point you are putting across through tge citation. if you are doing a literature review, reading all the papers is essential. however if you are just stating that this theory has been applied to other fields in the recent years, reading and understanding the abstract will do. The primary reason for citing is to show that whatever you are saying is backed up by peer reviewed papers. sometimes i read the abstract, methods and the conclusion of papers if i am in a rush. if the paper is good, figures often explain the results much better than the text. | 1 | 5,451 | 1.2 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr828fc | fr86991 | 1,589,965,118 | 1,589,969,262 | 17 | 24 | I quickly read them all, but study deeply only the ones I find critical to my understanding. Sometimes I just need a reference to a measurement establishing a value, so a quick read to check the quality of the work if enough, I don't need to go deep into the analysis and implications of that manuscript. | This is field dependent, but in biomed, no they don't. They'll give you answers like "I only read parts that are relevant, not the whole thing". This can usually be decoded as: I did a pubmed search for a thing I wanted to cite to flesh out my intro, saw a title I liked, maybe read the abstract, or even went as far as glancing at the figires. Or, I asked my friends if they know of people that worked on this, they sent me a paper and I looked at the title and abstract. That said, in a lot of biomed, you're lucky if every author on the paper actually even read the paper they're an 'author' on... nevermind other people's papers. | 0 | 4,144 | 1.411765 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr8478o | fr86991 | 1,589,967,152 | 1,589,969,262 | 15 | 24 | I've before cited a paper I didn't even have the ability to read properly, being old and written in a language I don't understand. However, this paper is the original reference for the measurement of one physical quantity we use in our work and at least in my opinion it's nicer to give the credit to the people who did the measurement rather than just CODATA. | This is field dependent, but in biomed, no they don't. They'll give you answers like "I only read parts that are relevant, not the whole thing". This can usually be decoded as: I did a pubmed search for a thing I wanted to cite to flesh out my intro, saw a title I liked, maybe read the abstract, or even went as far as glancing at the figires. Or, I asked my friends if they know of people that worked on this, they sent me a paper and I looked at the title and abstract. That said, in a lot of biomed, you're lucky if every author on the paper actually even read the paper they're an 'author' on... nevermind other people's papers. | 0 | 2,110 | 1.6 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr86991 | fr810rc | 1,589,969,262 | 1,589,963,907 | 24 | 13 | This is field dependent, but in biomed, no they don't. They'll give you answers like "I only read parts that are relevant, not the whole thing". This can usually be decoded as: I did a pubmed search for a thing I wanted to cite to flesh out my intro, saw a title I liked, maybe read the abstract, or even went as far as glancing at the figires. Or, I asked my friends if they know of people that worked on this, they sent me a paper and I looked at the title and abstract. That said, in a lot of biomed, you're lucky if every author on the paper actually even read the paper they're an 'author' on... nevermind other people's papers. | The first time one of my papers was cited it had absolutely nothing to do with the paper, or even the sentence it was used as a citation for, other than the patient population was the same (cancer patients). | 1 | 5,355 | 1.846154 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr828fc | fr810rc | 1,589,965,118 | 1,589,963,907 | 17 | 13 | I quickly read them all, but study deeply only the ones I find critical to my understanding. Sometimes I just need a reference to a measurement establishing a value, so a quick read to check the quality of the work if enough, I don't need to go deep into the analysis and implications of that manuscript. | The first time one of my papers was cited it had absolutely nothing to do with the paper, or even the sentence it was used as a citation for, other than the patient population was the same (cancer patients). | 1 | 1,211 | 1.307692 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr810rc | fr8478o | 1,589,963,907 | 1,589,967,152 | 13 | 15 | The first time one of my papers was cited it had absolutely nothing to do with the paper, or even the sentence it was used as a citation for, other than the patient population was the same (cancer patients). | I've before cited a paper I didn't even have the ability to read properly, being old and written in a language I don't understand. However, this paper is the original reference for the measurement of one physical quantity we use in our work and at least in my opinion it's nicer to give the credit to the people who did the measurement rather than just CODATA. | 0 | 3,245 | 1.153846 |
gn5ylz | askacademia_train | 0.98 | do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? | fr8oa8d | fr8qepj | 1,589,983,140 | 1,589,984,341 | 8 | 10 | Certainly rule #1 I teach my students is "never cite something you haven't read." I wouldn't be at all surprised to see published work that fails at that standard because I've seen it happen, but it's certainly something I've never done myself. | In the sciences I think reading the abstract is considered acceptable corner-cutting. Papers in the sciences tend to be short summaries of experiments or research. In the humanities (History, literature, philosophy) it's not, because the paper \*is\* the research. You can certainly skim: just focus on the few pages that discuss the text or concept you're working on, or read one chapter of a book, plus the introduction so you understand the context. But you have to understand the connection of the part to the larger argument. So read the whole thing. NEVER cite something from someone else's paper; there was a pretty radical error in one of the discussions of my first book, and every time I see it show up in another paper I know that person just hasn't fucking bothered. | 0 | 1,201 | 1.25 |
ry3g5u | askacademia_train | 0.81 | Tackling misogyny as a female PhD researcher How to tackle misogyny from senior white male Professors, as a female PhD student who is about to defend her thesis? The comments range from passing crude comments on my nation of origin and criticizing my computational skills on a course (without any feedback where I can improve) and similar. I have mostly tried in my PhD years to stay away and stop most communications with these persons, but now since they are the principal investigator in my PhD project, I need to face them. I see myself as a hard-working person trying to learn and improve, but I cannot work with people who have decided not to work with me because of me being a woman. Field of research: theoretical particle physics, country: Sweden. | hrm9roh | hrm9396 | 1,641,549,287 | 1,641,548,752 | 292 | 21 | This would not be my advice in general, but in this particular case, and thinking only of your personal well being and achievements, if you are "about to defend [your] thesis" then I'm inclined to say keep your head down and get through the defence. I would hate to think that your attempt to confront their behaviour could result in them failing you in retaliation. That isn't to say that that has to be the end of the story. Document every instance of bigotry and inappropriate behaviour that you can (if you have any of this in written form, e.g. emails they've sent where they make these crude comments, all the better), and once your PhD is secure make that available to whoever at your university oversees conduct (if your department/uni has an equality and diversity officer then they'd be a great resource). This definitely needs to be addressed, but there is a great power imbalance here, and you are in a very vulnerable position with respect to obtaining your PhD, so I think it would be better to wait until you're less vulnerable, and get the help of someone with more power in your institution. I want these people to face consequences for their actions, but I don't want *you* to suffer consequences for their actions. | Hello, I have been the victim of misogyny and harassment in academia, and sexual harassment in the industry. I am also working in STEM, in Europe. In my experience, you need to speak out and reach out somebody who is higher-up than them. The reasoning is the following... If you are lucky enough and you tell them directly to stop with the help of a **male coworker**, they will. The male coworker part is important, because if a man is involved on your side, they will listen. (I hate that it works like this; but it does). If you are less lucky, this does not work. Then, you need to reach out someone with power. A man or woman, both work. Explain, provide proof(s), show that you have done your very best to handle the situation in a peaceful manner, but now, you need support. For your PhD project, can you reach RH about this? Or the people providing the money? Or any other person that has more power than them? Good luck. You are strong; you can make it. You have the right to report unsafe or unpleasant situations. You have the right like anybody else to a safe, trustworthy and healthy workplace. Those are your feelings; and nobody can tell you how to feel differently. In my experience too, reporting those behavior is always scary because of the consequences. But, I am so proud I did! Even if I had to change of job twice because of that, I gained friends and respect when telling those stories. I feel like I can stand for a healthier workplace because I have been there; I can put limits so much more easily. | 1 | 535 | 13.904762 |
ry3g5u | askacademia_train | 0.81 | Tackling misogyny as a female PhD researcher How to tackle misogyny from senior white male Professors, as a female PhD student who is about to defend her thesis? The comments range from passing crude comments on my nation of origin and criticizing my computational skills on a course (without any feedback where I can improve) and similar. I have mostly tried in my PhD years to stay away and stop most communications with these persons, but now since they are the principal investigator in my PhD project, I need to face them. I see myself as a hard-working person trying to learn and improve, but I cannot work with people who have decided not to work with me because of me being a woman. Field of research: theoretical particle physics, country: Sweden. | hrm9396 | hrmw5mn | 1,641,548,752 | 1,641,563,496 | 21 | 52 | Hello, I have been the victim of misogyny and harassment in academia, and sexual harassment in the industry. I am also working in STEM, in Europe. In my experience, you need to speak out and reach out somebody who is higher-up than them. The reasoning is the following... If you are lucky enough and you tell them directly to stop with the help of a **male coworker**, they will. The male coworker part is important, because if a man is involved on your side, they will listen. (I hate that it works like this; but it does). If you are less lucky, this does not work. Then, you need to reach out someone with power. A man or woman, both work. Explain, provide proof(s), show that you have done your very best to handle the situation in a peaceful manner, but now, you need support. For your PhD project, can you reach RH about this? Or the people providing the money? Or any other person that has more power than them? Good luck. You are strong; you can make it. You have the right to report unsafe or unpleasant situations. You have the right like anybody else to a safe, trustworthy and healthy workplace. Those are your feelings; and nobody can tell you how to feel differently. In my experience too, reporting those behavior is always scary because of the consequences. But, I am so proud I did! Even if I had to change of job twice because of that, I gained friends and respect when telling those stories. I feel like I can stand for a healthier workplace because I have been there; I can put limits so much more easily. | I am a PI in Sweden. I have to say that I am surprised by this situation; not so much for racist comments (I have heard and complained *a lot* for such comments), but on gender discrimination. There are plenty of incentives and training tackling gender inequality within academia, so they should know much better. Then again, one should expect this sort of thing from certain full professors whose view of the world was informed 30-40 years ago, i.e. the last time they held a position outside their own country. In any case, I am sorry that this has happened to you. First, I wouldn’t worry about your viva. That is out of their hands. I know that this is easier said than done, but due to your ISP documents, there is not much they can do. Second, the best course of action is to talk to your union. As a PhD student, you should access both student and employee (e.g. SULF) unions. If you are not a member, become. In Sweden, unions hold a great deal of power, there is no stigma being a member of (over 90% of employees are), and, in my experience, are great at giving confidential advise to their members. They should be able to make any necessary enquiries and actions on your behalf —including talking to your prefect. Third, there is an equality officer in your department. It may worth speaking to them, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. You must speak to your reference person (one of the best things in the Swedish doctoral system). It is good to get them aboard. If they are part of the same ‘gang’, then go to the DoS or any member of your department’s Doctoral Studies Committee (if you have one, smaller departments may not). Document things in your ISP. We don’t really advertise it, but actually, it is easier for you to switch supervisors than for them to ‘fire you’ (technically, none can fire you from the PhD position). If the worst comes to be, you can switch supervisors. To be honest, the lack of feedback on the computational skills course might be due to the Swedish system. Particularly at grad level, it is a matter of ‘pass/fail’ more than anything for assignments. When I started giving out feedback on a grad-level course, students were surprised (I hate the idea of assignments at doctoral level, but if there are any, we may as well do them right). Avoid such examples when you speak to people, as you don’t want to ‘dilute’ the core message. Unless, of course, other participants got comments, and you were denied them. If so, you should, of course, document it. It is important when people complain about something to keep it simple and to the point. Otherwise, things become easier to be dismissed. | 0 | 14,744 | 2.47619 |
ry3g5u | askacademia_train | 0.81 | Tackling misogyny as a female PhD researcher How to tackle misogyny from senior white male Professors, as a female PhD student who is about to defend her thesis? The comments range from passing crude comments on my nation of origin and criticizing my computational skills on a course (without any feedback where I can improve) and similar. I have mostly tried in my PhD years to stay away and stop most communications with these persons, but now since they are the principal investigator in my PhD project, I need to face them. I see myself as a hard-working person trying to learn and improve, but I cannot work with people who have decided not to work with me because of me being a woman. Field of research: theoretical particle physics, country: Sweden. | hro1uym | htcgcqk | 1,641,579,252 | 1,642,614,983 | 4 | 7 | In addition to posting here, you might also find some good advice in /r/LadiesofScience | > crude comments on my nation of origin What does this have to do with being a woman > criticizing my computational skills on a course What does this have to do with being a woman | 0 | 1,035,731 | 1.75 |
ry3g5u | askacademia_train | 0.81 | Tackling misogyny as a female PhD researcher How to tackle misogyny from senior white male Professors, as a female PhD student who is about to defend her thesis? The comments range from passing crude comments on my nation of origin and criticizing my computational skills on a course (without any feedback where I can improve) and similar. I have mostly tried in my PhD years to stay away and stop most communications with these persons, but now since they are the principal investigator in my PhD project, I need to face them. I see myself as a hard-working person trying to learn and improve, but I cannot work with people who have decided not to work with me because of me being a woman. Field of research: theoretical particle physics, country: Sweden. | htcgcqk | hrqdmm2 | 1,642,614,983 | 1,641,612,582 | 7 | 2 | > crude comments on my nation of origin What does this have to do with being a woman > criticizing my computational skills on a course What does this have to do with being a woman | You are the expert. You are the expert. Don't let them you think otherwise. You are the expert. You put in the work. You are the expert. It's your research. You could talk about it in your sleep. Focus on the research and the work. I'm rootng for you. If I could I'd be in the audience cheering you on. Remember....you...are...the...expert. | 1 | 1,002,401 | 3.5 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g4pe9 | i2g6w9t | 1,648,481,340 | 1,648,482,230 | 118 | 195 | There is an Indo-European mythological kingship ritual that has been variously attached to a few different, disparate cultures. In it, the prospective king is purported to have had sex with a white horse, who is then butchered and put into a large cauldron. The prospective king also gets into this cauldron and a soup is made from the horse and the king that the attendees of this ritual then all eat from. I have heard this described by multiple academics, colloquially, as the "sexy horse feast," and it is one of my goals to continue this tradition (though I, as of yet, have never the opportunity to teach said ritual.) | Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends". | 0 | 890 | 1.652542 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g6w9t | i2fzerz | 1,648,482,230 | 1,648,479,130 | 195 | 94 | Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends". | In my field, there's a conference management software system called HotCRP, but people orally refer to it as "hot crap"... even though it's pretty good! | 1 | 3,100 | 2.074468 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g6l4s | i2g6w9t | 1,648,482,105 | 1,648,482,230 | 64 | 195 | I have to suppress a sophomoric giggle when I see something from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. One point in my PhD defense was an argument between committee members on “significant” vs “statistically significant.” | Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends". | 0 | 125 | 3.046875 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fzyl1 | i2g6w9t | 1,648,479,361 | 1,648,482,230 | 27 | 195 | Capital (T)ruth | Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends". | 0 | 2,869 | 7.222222 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g6w9t | i2g4n7a | 1,648,482,230 | 1,648,481,316 | 195 | 24 | Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends". | my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out | 1 | 914 | 8.125 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g6w9t | i2fqf6f | 1,648,482,230 | 1,648,475,160 | 195 | 23 | Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends". | The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n) | 1 | 7,070 | 8.478261 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g6w9t | i2fx8sx | 1,648,482,230 | 1,648,478,212 | 195 | 11 | Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends". | (re) | 1 | 4,018 | 17.727273 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g4pe9 | i2fzerz | 1,648,481,340 | 1,648,479,130 | 118 | 94 | There is an Indo-European mythological kingship ritual that has been variously attached to a few different, disparate cultures. In it, the prospective king is purported to have had sex with a white horse, who is then butchered and put into a large cauldron. The prospective king also gets into this cauldron and a soup is made from the horse and the king that the attendees of this ritual then all eat from. I have heard this described by multiple academics, colloquially, as the "sexy horse feast," and it is one of my goals to continue this tradition (though I, as of yet, have never the opportunity to teach said ritual.) | In my field, there's a conference management software system called HotCRP, but people orally refer to it as "hot crap"... even though it's pretty good! | 1 | 2,210 | 1.255319 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g4pe9 | i2fzyl1 | 1,648,481,340 | 1,648,479,361 | 118 | 27 | There is an Indo-European mythological kingship ritual that has been variously attached to a few different, disparate cultures. In it, the prospective king is purported to have had sex with a white horse, who is then butchered and put into a large cauldron. The prospective king also gets into this cauldron and a soup is made from the horse and the king that the attendees of this ritual then all eat from. I have heard this described by multiple academics, colloquially, as the "sexy horse feast," and it is one of my goals to continue this tradition (though I, as of yet, have never the opportunity to teach said ritual.) | Capital (T)ruth | 1 | 1,979 | 4.37037 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g4pe9 | i2g4n7a | 1,648,481,340 | 1,648,481,316 | 118 | 24 | There is an Indo-European mythological kingship ritual that has been variously attached to a few different, disparate cultures. In it, the prospective king is purported to have had sex with a white horse, who is then butchered and put into a large cauldron. The prospective king also gets into this cauldron and a soup is made from the horse and the king that the attendees of this ritual then all eat from. I have heard this described by multiple academics, colloquially, as the "sexy horse feast," and it is one of my goals to continue this tradition (though I, as of yet, have never the opportunity to teach said ritual.) | my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out | 1 | 24 | 4.916667 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g4pe9 | i2fqf6f | 1,648,481,340 | 1,648,475,160 | 118 | 23 | There is an Indo-European mythological kingship ritual that has been variously attached to a few different, disparate cultures. In it, the prospective king is purported to have had sex with a white horse, who is then butchered and put into a large cauldron. The prospective king also gets into this cauldron and a soup is made from the horse and the king that the attendees of this ritual then all eat from. I have heard this described by multiple academics, colloquially, as the "sexy horse feast," and it is one of my goals to continue this tradition (though I, as of yet, have never the opportunity to teach said ritual.) | The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n) | 1 | 6,180 | 5.130435 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g4pe9 | i2fx8sx | 1,648,481,340 | 1,648,478,212 | 118 | 11 | There is an Indo-European mythological kingship ritual that has been variously attached to a few different, disparate cultures. In it, the prospective king is purported to have had sex with a white horse, who is then butchered and put into a large cauldron. The prospective king also gets into this cauldron and a soup is made from the horse and the king that the attendees of this ritual then all eat from. I have heard this described by multiple academics, colloquially, as the "sexy horse feast," and it is one of my goals to continue this tradition (though I, as of yet, have never the opportunity to teach said ritual.) | (re) | 1 | 3,128 | 10.727273 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2ga38x | i2fzerz | 1,648,483,512 | 1,648,479,130 | 114 | 94 | "I'm going to push back on that" - as a non-confrontational way to disagree | In my field, there's a conference management software system called HotCRP, but people orally refer to it as "hot crap"... even though it's pretty good! | 1 | 4,382 | 1.212766 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g6l4s | i2ga38x | 1,648,482,105 | 1,648,483,512 | 64 | 114 | I have to suppress a sophomoric giggle when I see something from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. One point in my PhD defense was an argument between committee members on “significant” vs “statistically significant.” | "I'm going to push back on that" - as a non-confrontational way to disagree | 0 | 1,407 | 1.78125 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fzyl1 | i2ga38x | 1,648,479,361 | 1,648,483,512 | 27 | 114 | Capital (T)ruth | "I'm going to push back on that" - as a non-confrontational way to disagree | 0 | 4,151 | 4.222222 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2ga38x | i2g4n7a | 1,648,483,512 | 1,648,481,316 | 114 | 24 | "I'm going to push back on that" - as a non-confrontational way to disagree | my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out | 1 | 2,196 | 4.75 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fqf6f | i2ga38x | 1,648,475,160 | 1,648,483,512 | 23 | 114 | The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n) | "I'm going to push back on that" - as a non-confrontational way to disagree | 0 | 8,352 | 4.956522 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fx8sx | i2ga38x | 1,648,478,212 | 1,648,483,512 | 11 | 114 | (re) | "I'm going to push back on that" - as a non-confrontational way to disagree | 0 | 5,300 | 10.363636 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fqf6f | i2fzerz | 1,648,475,160 | 1,648,479,130 | 23 | 94 | The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n) | In my field, there's a conference management software system called HotCRP, but people orally refer to it as "hot crap"... even though it's pretty good! | 0 | 3,970 | 4.086957 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fzerz | i2fx8sx | 1,648,479,130 | 1,648,478,212 | 94 | 11 | In my field, there's a conference management software system called HotCRP, but people orally refer to it as "hot crap"... even though it's pretty good! | (re) | 1 | 918 | 8.545455 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g6l4s | i2hv7hp | 1,648,482,105 | 1,648,507,642 | 64 | 67 | I have to suppress a sophomoric giggle when I see something from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. One point in my PhD defense was an argument between committee members on “significant” vs “statistically significant.” | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | 0 | 25,537 | 1.046875 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gr5cq | i2hv7hp | 1,648,490,379 | 1,648,507,642 | 50 | 67 | "Is that an epistemological or ontological take on that?" No one knows what those are, good grief. | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | 0 | 17,263 | 1.34 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2hv7hp | i2h0k5y | 1,648,507,642 | 1,648,494,301 | 67 | 43 | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial” | 1 | 13,341 | 1.55814 |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.