I am almost 2 years into my postdoc now. It's easy to be caught up in the academic bubble. Especially as a grad student. Things that are insignificant seems like a life or death decision for you. I know it is very difficult to get away from your work for various reasons, but taking a week off and completely get away from academia is extremely important. It gives you a better perspective on your work and your motivations.

I think most grad students towards the end go through a self-examination phase where they really think about whether their motivation for wanting to do this is internal or whether they were just caught up in the popular perception of the monk scientist who nobly advance human knowledge.

It depends a lot on who you're working for. You might think that every professor with interesting publications at a high-ranking institution is smart, interested in their work, and invested in the success of their students. Or at least, this is what I thought when I was an undergraduate, when I did some research with some really great people. Since then, I've realized that some people of these professors are not particularly interested in science, but have big egos and are particularly skilled at promoting themselves. They're at top institutions and they are thus able to attract lots of money and smart, hard-working students, but their intellectual contribution to their lab's work is relatively small and the environment they produce within their labs (and institutions) is pretty toxic.

"You might think that every professor is ... smart, interested in their work, and invested in the success of their students. Or ... are not particularly interested in science, but have big egos and are particularly skilled at promoting themselves."

In the first place, those two categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In the second, there are other kinds: some of the best scientists I know have essentially set up an assembly line: students are plopped on one end of the conveyor belt, papers are chiselled off of them just before the two major conference seasons of every year, and a skilled researcher is boxed at the end of the line and shipped off to a grateful academic or industrial research institution.

The principle scientists are great people, they do excellent work, their students are good and well taken-care-of, and no one really has any reason to complain.

The only down side is that the papers coming out are kind of incremental, given the schedule of publishing at conferences twice a year, and a student that goes in at the top of the machine is going to come out the bottom as a researcher on a particular topic. I have no idea how well they're doing, in aggregate, a few years after graduation.

For me it all changed as soon as the PhD ended. Suddenly the cost to employ you skyrockets, and it becomes apparent how few permanent positions there are relative to the applicant pool. My PhD was pretty great, but my experience afterwards was pretty depressing.

I received my Ph.D. a little over a decade ago. I didn't succeed in getting a research job outside of academia, and the bit over a decade that I spent in academia convinced me I didn't want to be a part of it. As a result, my fancy piece of paper sits, completely unused, in a closet.

Whenever someone points out that I wasted numerous years of my life with nothing to show for it but a low salary history, I have to admit that I absolutely do not regret getting a Ph.D. I loved the work, and I loved the process of doing the work. I'd do it again (if I didn't have to pay for it again---I worked full time during grad school, which I recommend no one do).

So, yeah, don't go for a Ph.D. in computer science unless you absolutely cannot not go for a Ph.D. in computer science. And then, don't expect it to pay off in any way.

"...it is the most rewarding and enjoyable thing I've ever been a part of."

That's your Achilles heel. Beware!

The system was sufficiently functional to nurture enough knowledge and enthusiasm in you that you were equipped to attend and thrive in a PhD program. On a societal level, I don't think academia's sorry state is much to worry about.

On a personal level, it's pretty terrible. If you do decide to leave academia, there are plenty of opportunities for smart, committed people. I bailed on a PhD program shortly after starting my dissertation, and having Ivy-league graduate work on my resume has opened a lot of doors.

> catalyzed, I would argue, by tragic lack of funding

No, you don't get it. There is tons of funding. But academia is a corrupt old-boys network. Those petty, conniving people rise to the top and ultimately control the system.

- A grad student (who regrets going to grad school)

From experience as a researcher in a country undergoing severe R&D funding cuts, I can tell you that the ones that are most likely to survive the lack of funding are the "corrupt old boys", who can exploit their contacts and their system-gaming skills to secure the little funding that remains. Promising young scientists that aren't under the wing of one of the old boys are much likely to suffer the raw end of the deal. Basically my perception is that the funding cuts made everything this article describes much more prevalent, not less.

So in my opinion, "catalyzed by tragic lack of funding" (note "catalyzed", not "caused") is a pretty accurate description.

"There is tons of funding."

I'd have to agree with this. With the possible exception of the cold war, in certain fields, there is more now than any time historically. Before WWII, "professional scientific research" was a pretty rare thing; certain large companies did it (out of which comes the "applied" and "pure" distinction in many older fields, I believe) and certain educational institutions (but most were essentially teaching gigs with a spare closet for lab space).

Now, there's lots of money, but lots of faces feeding at the trough, too. And lots of reasons why breeding more scientists who subsequently starve isn't going to stop.

Does that mean a lack of funding can't catalyze the issue?

Edit: Just for transparency (topical!) I did not downvote you, and totally agree that cronyism is a major (and yeah maybe causative) issue, but I also think the decision on how to fund is basically an entirely separate problem which really doesn't have an obviously good solution (in my mind).

Make the companies that profit from the research do the research themselves, in house, and pay for it and direct it themselves. That's the only way.

You can't set up academia as a soviet-style bureaucracy and expect it to perform any differently from a soviet-style bureaucracy.

But not all scientific research will benefit companies. Some will even be detrimental to large companies (disruptive technologies). Therefore blueskies pure science needs funding from some source other than industry.

What I do find disturbing is the trend to push University research towards immediately commercially viable stuff. Industry would/should do this stuff anyway.

What, like the pharmaceutical industry? I would argue that much good knowledge is created that way but it, too, has its issues. See much of Ben Goldacre's work.

http://www.badscience.net/