Another way to do research if you are in an area adjacent to business, go for an Industrial PhD instead. Much fewer positions available but you usually get a job continuing in that specific area improving it. Papers not especially relevant, they are PR and not the main reason you are hired.
Congratulations on your reflection, Andrey. Your comments brought me a lot of relief and hope that the Academy can be something much more humanized and promising. Thank you and congratulations.
Thank you for keeping this discussion rolling! In my experience these issues are not homogeniously distributed. It depends on the country, the institution and also the field. As a rule of thumb I would say that the more money is involved, the more competitive and toxic the research environment gets. What I personally find interesting is that the big publications (in high impact journals) in my field usually don't really help me to progress with my own research. I often rely on "smaller" publications which are more dedicated toward the experimental details and openly discuss the remaining problems. This alone shows me that metrics are not the best way to evaluate a researcher. Sir Paul Nurse (a Nobel Laureate) once used a military analogy by saying that the researchers at the forefront might push a field to a new direction but often leave a mess behind which need to be sorted out by other researchers (repeating experiments, double checking, using other mehtodology etc.). We tend to overvalue the frontier scientists (most awards and public fame is directed to those) but we don't really appreciate the footwork by the majority of scientists who sort things out. Therefore, many scientists chase these metrics even after they are already set and got their tenure - making it insanely difficult for younger people to get a piece of the cake as well. The only way out is when scientists themselves - meaning those who already have some power - break this cycle and go back to what science actually is about. I am glad that more and more people in the community at least acknowledge this problem and openly resist this absurdity.
Great promotion for the Imperial College London. Having watched that previous video of yours about the declining value of academic papers I wondered if you've looked at that through the lens of the more general problem of science as a field of problem solving as discussed by Nicholas Rescher for example. To summarize he suggests that scientific progress is subject to the same phenomenon as any other field in that as it becomes more mature the more specialized, difficult and thus more expensive it becomes to push the knowledge of the field forward as it keeps on progressing towards the point of diminishing returns. Where you've touched upon the underlying reasons and mechanisms behind the practical issues that just seem to be getting worse it sounds very similar.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, the problem of diminishing returns exists in academia. I noticed that famous professors try to hunt for new topics to have a chance of making a contribution (or at least publishing a highly-cited paper). If you write a paper #500,000 about an optimisation algorithm for engineering problem X, it will just be another work with a few citations and no impact. But researchers still do that because they simply need more papers. Andrey
Thank you so much for the content you put out, has really helped me over time getting a clearer idea of the career prospects in academia. Unfortunately I find myself in this dilemma you mentioned, contemplating whether I should start a PhD in the hopes that by the time I finish, we might hope for drastic change in academia, or impeovement with the advent of AI. Moving from country to country and job uncertainty is not something I could see myself doing for the rest of my life
Hi! As I mentioned, doing a PhD can be a great opportunity and experience. It also looks nice on a CV. But then some tough decisions should be made, as staying in academia for a long time involves many sacrifices. Good luck!
my experience was not good as phd student. I wish I was born into a developed country and not having to move abroad for the PhD. You do not have the flexibility of a local. And too young to manage it correctly. I am enyoing my industry job now, but I would like to return to academia someday, but it seems hard to convince anyone to take me as a postdoc. Maybe I should publish additional papers on my own. Would that help?
Hi! Having a journal paper is always a plus for postdoc position applications. Do you have an idea or results to write about? Are you sure you have time to write it? It usually takes me 2-4 months to write a paper, plus I get advice from my professors. It can be difficult to write a paper on your own (without advice from any academics). Regardless of your papers, you can still apply for postdoctoral positions saying that you have industrial or any other relevant experience. Please make sure to send them a professional CV (e.g., mentioning projects instead of papers) and a clear cover letter with your ideas and potential contributions. Good luck!
Great research mindset but not great money making mindset, unless you have significant financial backing. Some institutions have more money and thus, the researchers are more free. Some research universities have less and the need to find ways to bring in more money.
Another way to do research if you are in an area adjacent to business, go for an Industrial PhD instead. Much fewer positions available but you usually get a job continuing in that specific area improving it. Papers not especially relevant, they are PR and not the main reason you are hired.
Thank you, Andrey! You are brave for speaking up👏👏
Congratulations on your reflection, Andrey.
Your comments brought me a lot of relief and hope that the Academy can be something much more humanized and promising.
Thank you and congratulations.
Thank you for keeping this discussion rolling! In my experience these issues are not homogeniously distributed. It depends on the country, the institution and also the field. As a rule of thumb I would say that the more money is involved, the more competitive and toxic the research environment gets. What I personally find interesting is that the big publications (in high impact journals) in my field usually don't really help me to progress with my own research. I often rely on "smaller" publications which are more dedicated toward the experimental details and openly discuss the remaining problems. This alone shows me that metrics are not the best way to evaluate a researcher. Sir Paul Nurse (a Nobel Laureate) once used a military analogy by saying that the researchers at the forefront might push a field to a new direction but often leave a mess behind which need to be sorted out by other researchers (repeating experiments, double checking, using other mehtodology etc.). We tend to overvalue the frontier scientists (most awards and public fame is directed to those) but we don't really appreciate the footwork by the majority of scientists who sort things out. Therefore, many scientists chase these metrics even after they are already set and got their tenure - making it insanely difficult for younger people to get a piece of the cake as well. The only way out is when scientists themselves - meaning those who already have some power - break this cycle and go back to what science actually is about. I am glad that more and more people in the community at least acknowledge this problem and openly resist this absurdity.
Thanks for this video. As a PhD student its nice to hear some positive stories on this topic.
Very useful video! I'm glad I watched it after the declining paper value video.
thank you for your honest perspective Andrey. I'm sharing your videos with anyone that asks me about academia.
Great promotion for the Imperial College London. Having watched that previous video of yours about the declining value of academic papers I wondered if you've looked at that through the lens of the more general problem of science as a field of problem solving as discussed by Nicholas Rescher for example. To summarize he suggests that scientific progress is subject to the same phenomenon as any other field in that as it becomes more mature the more specialized, difficult and thus more expensive it becomes to push the knowledge of the field forward as it keeps on progressing towards the point of diminishing returns. Where you've touched upon the underlying reasons and mechanisms behind the practical issues that just seem to be getting worse it sounds very similar.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, the problem of diminishing returns exists in academia. I noticed that famous professors try to hunt for new topics to have a chance of making a contribution (or at least publishing a highly-cited paper).
If you write a paper #500,000 about an optimisation algorithm for engineering problem X, it will just be another work with a few citations and no impact. But researchers still do that because they simply need more papers. Andrey
Thank you so much for the content you put out, has really helped me over time getting a clearer idea of the career prospects in academia.
Unfortunately I find myself in this dilemma you mentioned, contemplating whether I should start a PhD in the hopes that by the time I finish, we might hope for drastic change in academia, or impeovement with the advent of AI.
Moving from country to country and job uncertainty is not something I could see myself doing for the rest of my life
Hi! As I mentioned, doing a PhD can be a great opportunity and experience. It also looks nice on a CV. But then some tough decisions should be made, as staying in academia for a long time involves many sacrifices. Good luck!
thanks for this insight!
Thank you.
my experience was not good as phd student. I wish I was born into a developed country and not having to move abroad for the PhD. You do not have the flexibility of a local. And too young to manage it correctly. I am enyoing my industry job now, but I would like to return to academia someday, but it seems hard to convince anyone to take me as a postdoc. Maybe I should publish additional papers on my own. Would that help?
Hi! Having a journal paper is always a plus for postdoc position applications. Do you have an idea or results to write about? Are you sure you have time to write it? It usually takes me 2-4 months to write a paper, plus I get advice from my professors. It can be difficult to write a paper on your own (without advice from any academics).
Regardless of your papers, you can still apply for postdoctoral positions saying that you have industrial or any other relevant experience. Please make sure to send them a professional CV (e.g., mentioning projects instead of papers) and a clear cover letter with your ideas and potential contributions.
Good luck!
Totally agree
pls can you make video on what type of work is done in r&d sector. Does it satisfy scientific curiosity
Cannot agree less...
Are you speaking about Jalal K ?
Congrats on your new opportunity.
Great research mindset but not great money making mindset, unless you have significant financial backing. Some institutions have more money and thus, the researchers are more free. Some research universities have less and the need to find ways to bring in more money.
Though it is unrelated but many years back i went to Russia and met Vladimir Arnold . I feel proud that i met a legend .