[anbende]

Except it wasn't a great investment. Unless he was doing something great besides research.

If you put in amazing groundbreaking work in the first years of a startup and then started slacking off. How long before the company that you helped build has a right to kick you to the curb? A year? Five? More? How about 30?

5 papers, even good ones is pitiful for 30 years. Sure, it's possible that they were the culmination of long brilliant research projects. If that's the case then great. If it wasn't then the University has every right to ask what's up, which they did and decided to keep him on anyway.

[aub3bhat]

Hahhahah if you think having a Nobel award winning professor is not a great investment, you frankly don't understand how world works. There are Universities in some part of the world that will gladly pay more than what Edinburgh U. could, just to have him listed on the website.

Actually I have met people who did put in hard work in the initial years of a Unicorn statup. Guess what the value of their equity greatly exceeds the salary. And if the startup were to even kick them to curb they would live happily on their enormous earnings. Doing great research to an extent is similar.

[anbende]

Let's stick to the facts. University employs a Nobel Award winning scientist. He spends the next 30 years doing very little. The University says "hey, that's not cool. We thought you were going to keep doing research. Everyone says they're being too demanding."

I didn't say Nobel Award winners AREN'T a good investment. I said this one WASN'T. The University clearly thought he was going to produce. He didn't, and they were unhappy... with the return on their investment in him.

Right. The equity of early employees is high. My example wasn't about compensation, clearly. It was how long you continue to keep an underperforming employee in a position just because they did good work in the past.

[aub3bhat]

>> I said this one WASN'T.

HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHH, ROFL

Come on dude, I am sorry but you are wrong. Not just wrong but it seems you fundamentally misunderstand how world works.

See Peter Higgs is a Genius. The moment he published that paper, he knew that he essentially could do nothing, and the University would never "risk" losing him and waste potential payoff, even worse be ridiculed for firing a potential Nobel laureate. Also as wikipedia shows during all those years his research on Bosons kept him winning awards.

The University got far far far more than what they could have expected for when he eventually won the Nobel prize. Keeping him employed is equivalent to holding an option with enormous expected pay-off at small yearly recurring cost.

>> My example wasn't about compensation, clearly. It was how long you continue to keep an underperforming employee in a position just because they did good work in the past.

Except in academia having a seminal discovery, worthy of Nobel prize is equivalent to having large equity in that field. And from point of view of the University, losing such a person is equivalent to losing stake in delayed recognition of that work.

[anbende]

What am I wrong about? Seriously, I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing for. I'm saying that a university with an employee who does nothing for decades has the right to be a little pissed about that.

I'm not saying that having a Nobel Laureate on staff isn't worth something. I'm not saying that they should have fired him. I'm simply saying that I can understand the view in the earlier post where it was said that Higg's isn't a great example of why today's publishing climate is a bad thing.

The original article was about a Nobel Laureate who "wouldn't be productive enough for today's publishing climate". The implication is that this means that there is a problem with today's publishing climate. There may be, but Higgs isn't a good example of why. He was arguably not productive enough even for his earlier lower pressure time. He just put out one very brilliant piece of work that made up for it.

But that is in no way an indictment of the current academic focus on publications. There are other reasons and examples of why the current climate is a problem, but Higgs isn't one. The Higgs lesson in this context is "get a Nobel and you can do whatever you want". If you don't have a Nobel you're going to have to consistently produce research, and while the pressure to do so wasn't as high in the 70s and 80s, one paper every 3-5 years is pretty awful in an environment where publishing research is the goal.

[hueving]

You seem to have a problem with the concept of tenure. Why not just come out and say professors don't deserve tenure and they must keep pushing the rock up the hill grinding out paper after paper of incremental drivel?

[anbende]

I just tried to clarify my position in a post close to this one. Let me add this about tenure. Tenure is meant to protect researchers so they can do the resarch that they want and find most interesting. The idea is to insulate them from the vagaries of others opinions, as it is believed that this type of freedom is good for research. What it is NOT designed to do, and never was, was put tenured professors in a position where they can just not do research. While pressuring researchers to put out a half-dozen mediocre papers a year is probably not a good idea, as it lowers the quality of the field and turns science into a commodity, "less" is not necessarily the solution. In this case the amount that was being produced clearly indicated that research just wasn't getting done. If a researchers job is to do research, then expecting a certain amount of time and effort spent doing that is not unreasonable.

For that reason Higgs just isn't a good example of why the system is broken. The university was upset about his lack of productivity in the 70s, long before the current publishing environment became an issue.