[fullsend]

The highest rank in my mind is the tenured professor who builds businesses from the safety of the university. Those few who poach the brightest students for their lab, leverage that into a startup (or more than one), and exit for millions while collecting university checks. This brings me awe, respect, jealousy, and distaste in equal measure.

[inciampati]

Reading this made me check my personal privilege. I realized that that's exactly why I'm pursuing that kind of arrangement. It is absolutely at the top of the pile in terms of technical and artistic creative endeavors, which you can pursue, which also can make money. If played right, you really do get the best of every world. Tenure allows you to be exactly this crazy. The position gives you credibility to investors and the community at large. You'll have access to smart people all around you, who support what you do and are happy to collaborate.

[tomatodevice]

I've seen it a few times and I still don't understand how we can allow such blatant conflict of interests at the management level...

[pca006132]

It seems to me that from the university's standpoint, a company is considered a plus instead of corruption, i.e. have "real-world" impact, and perhaps the university will have a stake in the company as well (not sure about this). If so, it is a win-win situation for both the university management and the professor, only the student lose, and who cares about that little grad student?

[ghaff]

Typically not a stake that I know of but a school like MIT makes a lot of money from technology licensing.

[mrobins]

Is this where “tech transfer” comes in and the University gets a piece of the departing business or a perpetual licensing agreement?

[BeetleB]

Universities often benefit from it financially. There almost always is an agreement between the professor and the university.

[tough]

Everyone makes money?

[bell-cot]

Bear in mind how profoundly feudal academia's history and mindset are. A self-serving professor can bring a great deal of prestige to the university. And prestige is by far the #1 priority for a modern university.

[inciampati]

And this is also true for many of the people who work in institutions. Look at how much more desirable positions in coastal United States universities are than those in the interior, particular private ones like the IVs and some of the larger and more famous ones in big public systems. The thing is, if you don't care about status and you believe that almost anyone can do good work, as long as they're motivated, you can go anywhere you want, and in many cases you'll find that you're welcomed with open arms. But this comes at a cost of status.

[gazby]

Only because prestige equals money, the real #1 in academia.

[fallingknife]

That's just not true, though. Nobody who is after money goes into academia in the first place. It's not where the money is.

[ghaff]

>It's not where the money is.

No and certainly not on a risk-adjusted basis. (i.e. if you're reasonably competent, you're far more likely to do pretty well in private business than academia). On the other hand, while I've never had personal exposure to the downsides, a tenured position at an elite university in the US still seems pretty attractive with various caveats in both directions depending upon the location.

[gazby]

My bad for being unclear, I was referring to the institutions, not the faculty. Tons of money in administration roles though.

[robwwilliams]

You may mean “funding for research projects”. I would agree. Over the very long haul a successful research program can also result in a relatively high “academic” income (ca. $200,000 in biomedical research), but that no comparison with mid and top levels of programmers at FAANG et al.

[gazby]

I was referring to the institutions, not the faculty.