[beloch]

This student makes some excellent points, and it's a bit scary how some things reinforce each other.

Some journals, Nature being the most notable, chase impact factor above all else. The only thing they truly care about is that the papers they publish get cited. This means highly original work, which frequently doesn't get cited much for a long time, is less desirable than a turn-the-crank paper from a respected name.

Researchers have been taught to prize Nature publications (thanks to the same flawed metric of merit) and spend a disproportionate amount of time submitting papers to Nature. When you write a paper you choose your target journal, and writing for Nature means you need to avoid rocking the boat too much, because they receive so many submissions that one minor criticism from a referee will torpedo your paper, even if that criticism is demonstrably wrong. Sometimes invalid criticisms are made by referees who are jealous, threatened, or merely lazy, but the editor has so many other submissions to deal with that he/she won't take the time to evaluate and understand the referee recommendations. Real science invites debate, but Nature's editors run screaming from it.

Why do researchers care so much about playing this game if it compromises their writing and even their research? Even a tenured prof needs to hustle for funding if he wants to do more than teach and sit in his office. PI's are salesmen even more than they're managers! The very language itself is twisted at the core when applying for grants. The average researcher or project must be superlative in every way on paper or no money is going to come. You can't say you're doing something out of pure curiosity and the chances of it spawning another silicon valley are remote. It has to be imminently commercializable with potential for massive, revolutionary impact! Honesty will destroy you. If every research proposal delivered what it promised the World would be one giant Palo Alto. We would all be better off if some better way to allocate resources were found, but that's no easy task!

As for the PhD student... There is more than meets the eye here. You don't walk away from 4 years of work in the last month without reason. Perhaps his thesis is a hopeless mess. Perhaps his relationship with his supervisor is hostile. Perhaps he's mentally ill. The last few months are ridiculously stressful after all! It's also very possible he or she is a lot more than one month from finishing. Hopefully there are people who care about this person and will help him/her get back on track and finish. The game is flawed, but the best way to ensure nobody wins is to refuse to play it.

[takluyver]

That's interesting, because I've also seen the opposite problem in high impact journals, as in the Arsenic-based-life paper published in Science last year. The journal was keen to get a big dramatic story, and must have let it in with fairly minor peer review. Then it got roundly criticised after publication.

I hate the way we have to 'sell' research to compete for funding and prestigious publications. But my impression is that most researchers regard this as a necessary evil, not as their primary purpose. Maybe I've been lucky in my academic experiences (two UK universities, biology), but I met a lot of people who are still genuinely interested in the science. They play the salesman game, of course, because they have to, but they help their PhD students and postdocs, try to judge research from other groups objectively, and care about intellectual honesty. Some of the best are the emeritus professors, the ones who simply carried on researching instead of retiring.

[kazagistar]

I would say that publishing is a key point of research, but merely in the sense of "finding something worth conveying, and then conveying it to those who can build on it and use it". How many people cite you is not the best metric of success, but obviously you would want as many people to read your paper, and incorporate it in their own work; that is a very democratic measure of research value.

In many cases, the paper is not the best method of conveying information, but it works well enough for most cases that no one has managed to usurp it. Editor reviewed journals might have some flaws in their process, but it is effective enough at picking out useful papers that scientists clearly chose to purchase them and use them as a source. So I wouldn't hate the publishing cycle per say, just the fact that in those cases where it is not exactly optimal, the tyranny of the majority is ruining the day of a small set of research types.

[kennethcwilbur]

I'm an academic who is 13 years into his career. I see my job as consisting of three phases: 1) find important, unsolved problems. 2) find convincing answers to these problems. 3) communicate the answers to people who can use them. I usually get to organize my day around these principles. I feel very satisfied with my career.

I'm also in a field that has low financial barriers to doing research. The lab model that is predominant in the natural sciences is very very different.

[mafribe]

There is some merit in the rant but it suffers from myopia, probably owing to the author's inexperience and subsequent lack of understanding how science really works.

Here's the secret: it is quite possible to get a permanent position with a reasonable teaching load at a reasonable university without lots of funding and without having to produce large numbers of publications in high-profile conferences/journals. Indeed the majority of the world's scientists do just this -- almost by definition, for otherwise selective journals/conferences/funding systems could not be selective: to be selective means to deny entry to the masses. The trick is to think long-term and build develop one's niche of science, until so much material of interest has been accumulated that something novel and substantial has become of it. In my experience, that takes a decade or two of an individual's labour. It's psychologically difficult to toil solitary for that long without positive community feedback (which in science really comes in form of grants and high-profile publications). But it is certainly possible. By the time you have created that niche, you can also create your own conferences/journals/prizes etc, and all of a sudden you are the eminent scientist in your field. That in turn makes it easy to get PhD students, grants etc.

Caveat: the above programme may not work so easily for pre-tenure academics at the top-prestige universities, or in fields that have very high start-up costs in terms of material and/or labour (e.g. high-energy physics). Fortunately, most of computer science is comparatively cheap though (needs only a laptop and an internet connection).

Given that this is a possible career path, and clearly many scientists who got famous only late in life, or posthumously, have had long periods of frustrating 'drought', one wonders if negative rants like that in the linked article, may not in part be a reflection of the authors lack of belief in his/her abilities.

[lgieron]

I guess what stops most people from pursuing that road is the risk that, after "a decade or two", it turns out that your intuitions were wrong and you've got very little to show for the years of toiling. It's essentially a gamble on your life.

[gsnedders]

At least in the UK I know there's a fair amount of rating academic staff by research grants they have received, which hurts anyone doing any long-term work with all the costs at the beginning or anyone doing generally low-cost research.

[rthomas6]

I'm not claiming you're wrong, but why isn't it possible for the student to simply no longer place any value in getting a PhD? That is what they claim, and intelligent people often make decisions on principle that make little practical sense.

[NhanH]

It's the same reason that people don't drop everything in their life to pursue their ideals: the odd of succeeding following the established path may be awful, but the alternatives' odds are even worse. Even without regard to the practicality of the choices (ie economic aspect of it) , you basically have two choices: go to grad school and have ~25-50% of getting somethings out of it (and I'm talking about knowledge/ skills, not the degree), or lock yourself in a room, hoping for the best?

If you're on the caliber of, says Srinivasa Ramanujan or Galois, then I'm fairly sure you don't have to give a shit to PhD or any educational systems. Most of us aren't that type of geniuses though, and we do need help and coaching from advisors, grad schools or otherwise.

[betterunix]

Eh...

In theory, the PhD is this fantastic credential that opens all kinds of doors. In practice it might make a small difference in your starting salary in industry. The only place where having a PhD is truly important is in a research position, which basically means academia. Even then it is not the last word -- tenure track positions might be out, but there are a number of schools who are willing to hire a good researcher whose highest degree is an MS.

Even with a PhD your prospects may not be all that much better than they are with an MS. I have seen people get a PhD with only one or two published papers, in a field where you need at least ten to even have a serious shot at a tenure track position. If you are the kind of person whose attitude is, "Screw it, I am in school to learn as much as I can and not just to publish a bunch of incremental improvements," you might not even get a shot at an academic job. Sure, someone can pad their CV as a postdoc -- but that is not all that much better than being a grad student, just moderately better pay.

[NhanH]

I wasn't talking about PhD as a credential, I was talking about how for the normal good-but-not-Feynman aspiring scientists, going for a PhD is one of the few ways you can properly learn how to do research.

[rthomas6]

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. I certainly would not make the decision of the article writer even if I hated my entire field. But intelligent (though not wise) people often make foolhardy decisions. Perhaps what the writer did is more unthinkable than I'm imagining; I only have a bachelor's degree, but I've seen smart, motivated people switch directions at inopportune times. Someone I know left a well-paying job that fit his (4 year STEM) degree with an amazing work environment for... well he didn't know what for. He just didn't like engineering after all and wanted to do something else in some other field.

[yk]

Because there is a story why he does no longer value a PhD. And a PhD is a huge investment, both in time as in money, and you don't walk away lightly. So even assuming that the email is a comprehensive account of his reasons to quit his PhD, he did still go from believing in the university system to deeply disappointed of the university system, a system he did spend a huge amount of time in. ( And this is essentially the best case.)

[PeterisP]

If you want to do research, then you either need funding (for which you need to work with the system being criticised, get the PhD and get a grad student workforce..) or you need to be independently wealthy from some other source so you can afford to.

[miguelrochefort]

Aren't there more alternatives? I'm in that particular situation, and I don't have formal education, nor money.

[betterunix]

"As for the PhD student... There is more than meets the eye here. You don't walk away from 4 years of work in the last month without reason"

Says who? Maybe this student has no interest in going into academia and does not see the point of completing a PhD program.

[solarmist]

There's nothing wrong with what he said. Even you gave an alternative reason.

The student has a reason, we just don't know what it is.

[atmosx]

Actually the vibes I get from world-wide accademia is kind of the opposite direction: Human Sciences, even applied sciences related studies that are not ready to produce money (turning them some way into a small-term investment) are not funded anymore, because states (all over Europe for sure) are cutting down budges and research is one of the main sectors that gets cuts down to fractions. So if a company doesn't fund your research (which will not, if the company doesn't have any substantially imminent gain), no one does.

There are other points that are addressed in the opposite direction. Anyway it's good to have a wide variety of opinions floating around, makes it easier for us outsiders to get closer to 42...