this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
675 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

10394 readers
3250 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 52 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

I think it's funny how academia selects people based on their scientific aptitude and research experience and then puts them into positions where they have to spend much of their time teaching (something they may not have the aptitude for and definitely aren't trained to do) and writing grant proposals. The more experience people have, the less time they have to do research (with the exception of a relatively small number of celebrity professors).

With that said, I'm not sure how things could be changed for the better. I'd say that some training in teaching would be good, but I think most academics don't actually want that. Being a TA was already an unwelcome imposition back when I was a grad student, so I wouldn't have wanted to spend more time away from my research to become a better TA.

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's obvious how to make it better: spend as much money on scientific progress as we do on figuring out how to blow brown people up.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I wouldn't be opposed to more funding but there would still have to be some way to decide who to fund and making a good case that one's research is worthwhile is always going to take a long time.

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

Maybe pay people who's only job it is is to talk to the researchers and write the proposal for them? Someone smart enough to get stuff explained to them, but with the communication skills to boil that down into something the money people can understand?

It's a pretty common position in software engineering because programmers and business people are pretty bad at communicating with each other.

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, it only takes a long time because there's so little to go around. Do you think defense funding takes months and years to award grants? No.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are literally decades-long proposals, initial R&D and prototyping for big defense contracts.

No, they aren't taking years to award a new contract for the paper provider, but they are for new weapons and vehicles.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Yeah because they're so big. This guy is not asking for a grant for 2000ppl, multi-year project around nuclear fusion, it's just him and a couple students mucking around in a petri dish

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wonder what you'd might call that "figuring out" thing

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I sure wouldn't call it scientific progress, if that's what you're implying.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Science isn't just about nice stuff

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's just how the term is defined. Blame English language users, I guess

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah yes. Nice science and evil science.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah. Goes all under "science"

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Problem solved then! Everyone just needs to do killing people science in order to make a living.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Are you really upset that the term "science" includes even things we might personally find upsetting?

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Because our (US) current priorities fuel a worldwide arms race, while real investment in basic sciences would benefit humanity and keep postdocs from starving. The entire NIH budget for everything is $47 billion, while the Department of Defense budget is $825 billion, $145 billion of which for R&D. You think we should be spending $100 billion per year more on killing people than on making people's lives better?

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know what you imagine I was saying, I was just trying to say that a lot of that is science.

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

All I'm saying is that postdocs shouldn't be living below the poverty line with a side of stop killing people.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 14 points 1 day ago

You'd have to overhaul the funding system drastically.

Measuring scientific output by publications and citations is useless at best, but it's easy so that's how you're measured.

Writing grant proposals is 95% useless bullshit, there's no useful content in the proposals, but it gives a false sense of objectivity and competitiveness, so that's how you're funded.

Thing is, most of the world operates like that. Corporations measure useless KPIs and demand empty reports. There's an entire caste of administrators whose entire existence is founded on this overhead to exist. I don't see a way to change that without a very very serious disruption (that is, a major war, not a startup).

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Some researchers make terrible teachers. It's ridiculous to me.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Maybe some graduate-level classes need to be taught by a researcher in the field and so students will simply have to deal with any deficiencies that researcher may have as a teacher, but IMO undergrads will probably learn more at a community college because the professors are actually there to teach.

I still wouldn't recommend the community college because the diploma from there won't get the graduate as much respect, but I do know a community college graduate with a bachelor's who makes way more than I do. She had trouble getting her first job but once she had some work experience, employers cared a lot less about where she studied. I also know another graduate who got her associate's at a community college and then transferred to somewhere more prestigious; she saved money without compromising her education.

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not to mention people managers. Oof.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 18 hours ago

Oh yeas definitely. Lab directors make the worst managers.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

It's almost like the two skill sets are not actually equivalent.