Academia: Exponential Growth & Post Docs Till 40?

[Pyrrhus]

People have limited time, and so silos tend to form. But in the end it got published. Having clueless reviewers is a sometimes a good thing, since they will give you the benefit of the doubt and publish it. One problem with economics journals is that if the reviewers know the papers and don't like them, the papers will get binned.

I will give you that one, because it is more likely than not. Economists (at least academics) are notorious for loving their jargon and their ways. They don't usually allow outsiders to publish so easily. It takes time, but it can be done as I mentioned before. However, (I think) economists are more open to read outside economic journals in contrast to physicists. In my experience, physicists are more open to listen to uncommon (to them) views by outsiders.

 

[deRham]

But is that a good thing? One thing about physics is that the reason that physics gets the money is that the generals and CEO want better bombs and toasters. One of the *good* things about this is that in order to get what the generals and CEO's want, you *can't* be narrowly focused on a small technical research area. You *have* to think broadly about what you are doing and to function in an environment where you have to think politically and philosophically.

The problem with "sending people elsewhere" is that it totally guts the research effort and undermines the political point of the exercise. Also, "where is elsewhere?"

Does string theory get funding from people who want better bombers and toasters?

One issue is that not everyone getting a math or physics PhD seems necessarily to have what the generals and CEOs want as priority, and you can try forcing them to by shoving them into a market, but that works for a limited number of people. Whereas a lot of smart people who actually could complete a math PhD if they wanted don't really care enough to research differential geometry, even if they learned some in college, and some of them end up in careers where they DO accomplish some things which seem to be in demand. The people who just don't find what the generals and CEOs want in their great interest will just end up competing with people without PhDs for basic jobs to make ends meet and try to find satisfaction in life outside their careers. That's not terrible, but it certainly doesn't put their creative energies to use much. Perhaps you hit a sweet spot in between :)

Well, I don't really mean send people elsewhere - more like it will naturally happen if they don't want to do what the research careers demand. The best that can be done is to try to keep around most of the people who would probably be more productive as academic researchers than anything else. That certainly is NOT everyone who is going for a PhD (some are invariably there more for some sense of prestige or out of confusion as to what else to do).

But what if you are flexible? Tell me what I should enjoy.

If you are flexible, why can't you enjoy the many things your flexibility takes you towards? If we're talking career, I'd say do the thing you enjoy at which you're also the most productive, at first naive approximation.

 

[twofish-quant]

Does string theory get funding from people who want better bombers and toasters?

Absolutely.

http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5626

Here's one random grant

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=1068558

There's a search engine on the site where you can see others.

Also a lot of funding goes through Federal student aid. Essentially money that goes to pay tuition ends up funding research through overhead. And then you also have indirect funding in that donations to universities are tax deductible and also not subject to estate taxes.

The other thing is that the number of Ph.D. in science and math is basically controlled by the amount of government funding that goes into the system.

One issue is that not everyone getting a math or physics PhD seems necessarily to have what the generals and CEOs want as priority

This is research. The generals and CEO's are willing to write blank checks because no one knows what is going to turn up. I mean, when I did my Ph.D. in radiation hydrodynamics, no one knew that the math would be useful for calculating bank liquidity ratios. If something was obviously of immediate benefit then you could fund it from private sources.

Part of the reason that physicists get paid is that the generals and CEO's don't know exactly what they want, and need advice as to what they situation is.

The people who just don't find what the generals and CEOs want in their great interest will just end up competing with people without PhDs for basic jobs to make ends meet and try to find satisfaction in life outside their careers.

We are talking about a few thousand people here. Also, part of the reason I think I got a good education is that the generals and CEO's have no idea what they want at a detail level. So you set up a political and economic system to figure it out.

Also, the generals and CEO's want a booming economy. Without a good economy, then you can't afford an aircraft carrier. The other thing is that we have a massively productive economy. If we are in a situation in which most people are just struggling to make ends meet then there is something seriously broken that needs to get fixed.

Since the time of the Romans, politicians have figured out that to keep a population docile, you need bread and circuses, and if people are struggling for bread then at some point people are going to wonder why they put up with the system, and the people with power will lose it. So it's essential for the ruling classes to provide enough toys and distractions to keep the masses passive and docile. Having a sound banking system is essential for this because as long as someone is figuring out what apps to install on their iPhone, they aren't going to be interested in overthrowing the government.

And keeping the banking system sound is where I come in. As long as people have jobs and mortgages, they are going to be chained to the system. Once jobs and mortgages disappear, then people really have nothing to lose but their chains, and then you have revolution.

The best that can be done is to try to keep around most of the people who would probably be more productive as academic researchers than anything else.

Define "productive". For the people that run the world, having someone in a bank trying to prevent world revolution is infinitely more productive than someone in a university that just puts out papers.

If you are flexible, why can't you enjoy the many things your flexibility takes you towards?

Because in the way that I look at the world, enjoyment means stagnation. I'm an intellectual masochist, and part of being a masochist is that it feels bad to feel good and it feels good to feel bad. Also because of my religious upbringing, I feel nervous and guilty about enjoying myself.

If we're talking career, I'd say do the thing you enjoy at which you're also the most productive, at first naive approximation.

Again, you have to define "productive." Personally, I've found that paradoxically being forced to do something that I hate makes me more creative in that I have to think of clever ways of getting out of the work.

It turns out that "saving the world" involves a lot of unglamorous crap work that no one wants to do, so since we are clever people, we are figuring out ways of making sure the work gets done without anyone having to work too hard to do it.

 

[deRham]

I mean, when I did my Ph.D. in radiation hydrodynamics, no one knew that the math would be useful for calculating bank liquidity ratios.

This refers to a fascinating topic, at least to me. I've always wondered what benefit funding the innovation of new math has to that CEO/general. I mean, is the math developed private and only at the disposal of that funding source? I'd imagine almost anyone could benefit.

Define "productive". For the people that run the world, having someone in a bank trying to prevent world revolution is infinitely more productive than someone in a university that just puts out papers.

Productive meaning they end up doing whatever is both useful for themselves and the rest of the people running the world.

Being forced out of academia does not imply the individual is going to end up doing a high stress job that prevents world revolution. That would perhaps be true of working in banks were a career that is "second choice to academia."

As has been said before, the same sort of funding going into math/physics doesn't necessarily make its way to all the humanities departments. A common second choice for a humanities person who did a graduate degree is going into a teaching career. Now, teaching is noble. Having great teachers is important. However, it doesn't seem to benefit generals and CEOs much directly. I wonder why they fund it then, because indeed, I don't doubt that a lot of, say, math PhDs end up doing some such teaching career at a non-research institution, or something totally different.

Basically: why fund someone to be trained in string theory when you want better toasters? Wouldn't it be better never to give them the chance to learn string theory (from the point of view of toasters and bombs)? I use string theory as an example because depending on what angle one takes, it can take place in either the math or physics department.

This leads back to the earlier question of whether some "profound new useful math" actually benefits the CEO's direct needs.

 

[deRham]

Because in the way that I look at the world, enjoyment means stagnation. I'm an intellectual masochist

Or one can just redefine enjoyment :)

 

[twofish-quant]

This refers to a fascinating topic, at least to me. I've always wondered what benefit funding the innovation of new math has to that CEO/general.

Ask the NSA. They probably know more about factoring large numbers than anyone else in the world. For that matter, I've seen some very interesting work in applied math in financial firms. If your algorithms are faster than the people across the street, then you can sell financial products that they can't.

I mean, is the math developed private and only at the disposal of that funding source?

It depends. In my situation, it's understood than any new mathematical technique is going to be known by everyone eventually (usually in a matter of months), however, the game is to be able to exploit the edge that you have. Also, you can't chain people to the office, so usually the firm across the street finds out about a new technique when they give the person that invents it enough money to switch firms.

For stuff that the NSA develops, you can't do that, and people that do that sort of work are under a lot of legal restrictions. For the stuff that the NSF produces then there aren't.

There are also odd situations in which someone wants everyone to know about something without anyone knowing who discovered it.

For example, some major banks have close relationships with academics so that the academic will with the bank's blessing publish mathematical work that was developed by the bank. There are some legal reasons for this. If a bank publishes a mathematical paper that is obviously likely to be used to price some financial product, then the regulators can get annoyed, whereas if the bank hands the research over the an academic, who builds on it and then publishes it without the banks name, this doesn't trip over securities regulations.

For that matter, there is a ton of development on open source software that is done anonymously by major financial firms.

Productive meaning they end up doing whatever is both useful for themselves and the rest of the people running the world.

Define "useful"

Being forced out of academia does not imply the individual is going to end up doing a high stress job that prevents world revolution. That would perhaps be true of working in banks were a career that is "second choice to academia."

Even low stress jobs prevent world revolution. All that matters is that you are in the office and not in the street. However, one curious thing is that most menial jobs are in fact quite high stress. Working as a waiter, a cashier, or a telemarketer is extremely high stress.

Now, teaching is noble. Having great teachers is important. However, it doesn't seem to benefit generals and CEOs much directly.

Yes it does. In order to keep yourself in power, you have to tell a story to explain to people why they must kill and die for something. When people are no longer willing to kill and die for a cause, then countries collapse. In the 1940's, people in Russia were willing to kill and to die for the hammer and sickle, but in the 1990's, people stopped and everything collapsed.

One of the major functions of schools is political indoctrination. In the US for example, one message that gets taught starting from elementary schools is that freedom and democracy are important. So you need lots of people that come up with these stories, and lots of people to teach these stories. One other thing is that starting from elementary school, you are to stand in line, raise your hand before being speaking, and turn in your assignments on time. It's all so that you end up as a cog in the machine.

Almost... The tricky part is that you don't want people to be "complete robots" because if they are, then the system is going to fall apart. So what you want is for people to work against the system within the system.

Basically: why fund someone to be trained in string theory when you want better toasters?

Same reason it turned out to be a good idea to fund people to research heavy metal ores in the 1920's. You never know what is going to turn up, and if something does turn up, you want it first.

It turns out that string theory is useful in valuing mortgage backed securities.

Wouldn't it be better never to give them the chance to learn string theory (from the point of view of toasters and bombs)?

Most people in fact don't get the chance to learn string theory. The number of people that do is controlled by funding levels, and the political system adjusts those levels to get the number of people that they want. Which isn't high. Maybe a dozen a year.

This leads back to the earlier question of whether some "profound new useful math" actually benefits the CEO's direct needs.

If it didn't, they wouldn't be paying me as much as they do.

A lot of my thinking involves taking Marxist ideas and then figuring out how to make use of them. I'm very heavily influenced by Marx, Trotsky, and Chomsky, but the big difference is that since I grown up when the Soviet red dream was dying and the biggest political event in my life was when it finally died, I don't have very much support for using Marxist ideology to advance world revolution or overthrow the status quo.

So what I've done is to take Marxism and try to figure out to use it for my advantage. What does it take to get me money, and that involves understanding why people behave in the way that they do.

 

[chill_factor]

Interesting. So can you tell me why bio related fields are getting immense funding at the academic level, but in industry, even some PhDs in biology related fields are waiting tables and driving buses (like one almost-Nobel prize biochemist)?

Why is it that "biotechnology" was touted as the answer to all of humanity's health problems and chemical shortages, yet the delivery has been relatively disappointing?

If its supply and demand, is it that they want a large supply of highly educated lab serfs working for Big Health to keep them alive for a few years longer?

 

[twofish-quant]

Interesting. So can you tell me why bio related fields are getting immense funding at the academic level, but in industry, even some PhDs in biology related fields are waiting tables and driving buses (like one almost-Nobel prize biochemist)?

I can tell you want bio-related fields are getting a lot of finding because there is some rivalry between fields over tax dollars. The reason that bio-related fields are getting a ton of money is that people are scared of either they or their parents getting sick and dying.

Even the richest most powerful person in the world will get old and die, and that helps set funding priorities.

As far as what this means for biology Ph.D.'s you'll have to ask a biology Ph.D.

Why is it that "biotechnology" was touted as the answer to all of humanity's health problems and chemical shortages, yet the delivery has been relatively disappointing?

Because human beings seem to be genetically programmed to die at around 70 to 80, and in order to prolong life at that level, you need to spend increasingly large amounts of resources for increasingly fewer gains. In addition a lot of the major advances in wealth have tended to shorten lifespan. The increase in obseity have overwelmed technology advances in health care.

Also, people are willing to spend huge amounts for marginal gains. If you have someone that is dying of terminal cancer or how has Alzheimer's, then an extra six months of life or an extra three months of being able to recognize your kids is worth a huge amount of effort.

Finally, I suspect that there is *some* way of disabling the self-destruct mechanism in the human body, and then world totally changes if we can figure that out.

If its supply and demand, is it that they want a large supply of highly educated lab serfs working for Big Health to keep them alive for a few years longer?

Yes and so does everyone else in the world. One thing that you have to understand is that when I say that the world is run by a relatively small number of people, I don't necessarily think that it's a *bad* thing. People with power are human and they are afraid of death just like anyone else. Now if they spend bizillions of dollars so that they can live longer, and I end up benefiting, then I'm not going to complain.

 

[chill_factor]

I can tell you want bio-related fields are getting a lot of finding because there is some rivalry between fields over tax dollars. The reason that bio-related fields are getting a ton of money is that people are scared of either they or their parents getting sick and dying.

Even the richest most powerful person in the world will get old and die, and that helps set funding priorities.

As far as what this means for biology Ph.D.'s you'll have to ask a biology Ph.D.
Because human beings seem to be genetically programmed to die at around 70 to 80, and in order to prolong life at that level, you need to spend increasingly large amounts of resources for increasingly fewer gains. In addition a lot of the major advances in wealth have tended to shorten lifespan. The increase in obseity have overwelmed technology advances in health care.

Also, people are willing to spend huge amounts for marginal gains. If you have someone that is dying of terminal cancer or how has Alzheimer's, then an extra six months of life or an extra three months of being able to recognize your kids is worth a huge amount of effort.

Finally, I suspect that there is *some* way of disabling the self-destruct mechanism in the human body, and then world totally changes if we can figure that out.
Yes and so does everyone else in the world. One thing that you have to understand is that when I say that the world is run by a relatively small number of people, I don't necessarily think that it's a *bad* thing. People with power are human and they are afraid of death just like anyone else. Now if they spend bizillions of dollars so that they can live longer, and I end up benefiting, then I'm not going to complain.

so the moral of the story is:

rich people living longer while the poor work as serfs for them is a great system?

i still don't get why industry doesn't seem to want much to do with bio. I'm not talking about just biology itself, but all the physical chemistry, physics, engineering, etc. that goes along with biological and pharmaceutical applications.

 

[cdotter]

so the moral of the story is:

rich people living longer while the poor work as serfs for them is a great system?

i still don't get why industry doesn't seem to want much to do with bio. I'm not talking about just biology itself, but all the physical chemistry, physics, engineering, etc. that goes along with biological and pharmaceutical applications.

It's more profitable to produce infinitesimally better products than it is to produce revolutionary products because the research associated with the latter is going to significant increase the price. Look at how expensive cutting edge drugs and medical procedures have become. I realize that consumer-level prices are affected by more than simply R&D, but can we really afford to make them even more expensive?

 

[chill_factor]

It's more profitable to produce infinitesimally better products than it is to produce revolutionary products because the research associated with the latter is going to significant increase the price. Look at how expensive cutting edge drugs and medical procedures have become. I realize that consumer-level prices are affected by more than simply R&D, but can we really afford to make them even more expensive?

each tiny little 1 month lifespan advancing drug costs billions to make. you're right, it takes "revolutionary" price, for "incremental" improvements.

all the new cancer drugs, therapies, etc. give the patient maybe, 1-2 months extra or increase survival rate from 1% to 4% (they'll call it "quadrupling the survival rate" but that's a joke).

its funny how the biggest increase in lifespan was due to sanitation, then due to diet. medicine is surprisingly inefficient and brute force despite trillions being invested in it and millions of careers ruined because of the false hope of biotech.

 

[deRham]

Yes it does. In order to keep yourself in power, you have to tell a story to explain to people why they must kill and die for something. When people are no longer willing to kill and die for a cause, then countries collapse. In the 1940's, people in Russia were willing to kill and to die for the hammer and sickle, but in the 1990's, people stopped and everything collapsed.

One of the major functions of schools is political indoctrination.

Why do the people in power trust disgruntled math PhDs to do their indoctrination for them?

Define "useful"

For who, me? Because my comment was meant to acknowledge that "useful" doesn't have a universal meaning. At the end of the day, it means that I don't think I'm wasting my time, and the person funding me doesn't think I could be using my time better. That's the best possible outcome. The next best possible outcome "to the world" is that the person funding me is happy, and I'm not but I put up with it and the world goes on.

I'll refine my definition of "useful" as long as someone can help justify what I'm doing to me.

If I'm funded to research stuff involving path integrals (I'm using that example only because it's come up) and I use those kinds of ideas in my work that's considered more valuable than publishing papers, I can imagine that's a good argument. If I learned differential geometry and I do the same job as someone who would never want to learn it, then I wonder how one can justify the time I spent, aside from "personal enrichment," but I'm pretty sure it's NOT in someone's interests to fund my enrichment for the sake of it, which means working for a better system where I actually use (not necessarily directly) what I learned is not a bad thing.

Now one may argue that doing the same job as someone who doesn't want to learn that stuff is valuable because it's good for the PhD to try to convince people why they'd want to learn those things. But that presumes that there's reasonable opportunity to even do such convincing. If plenty of people with some cleverness are able to achieve such a thing, even if it's unobvious, then yes, there's a point to how things are working.

I always like to bring up the example of a non-PhD who learned differential geometry or some such "pure" topic that still could find itself making interesting contributions to the more applied world. We can't discount non-PhDs as potential valuable intellectuals.

It depends. In my situation, it's understood than any new mathematical technique is going to be known by everyone eventually (usually in a matter of months), however, the game is to be able to exploit the edge that you have.

OK, I think that makes sense, thanks for the example.