News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Screwed up incentives in higher education by goalieca on Friday November 26, 2010 @09:01PM (#1944034)
So the article talks about undergrads getting screwed out of a good education. What about grad students. Whereas undergrads are coached to write tests we're coached to publish. Am I learning yet?
Re:Screwed up incentives in higher education by axiom on Friday November 26, 2010 @09:05PM (#1944039)
Yeah, but the point of grad school is to do research. I understand why grad school tuition may go towards paying for research labs and publishing papers.

Also, grad students have funding - so tuition is more like an overhead fee on the funding provided by grants and private research partners. Grad courses are also typically seminars, with no more than 10-15 students per course where you get to work one-on-one with the professor. Not to mention that profs tend to actually like teaching grad courses.

Grad school makes sense to me, conceptually at least. Undergrad tuition and the whole system is just insane. It's all basically diploma mills.

Re:Screwed up incentives in higher education by wnoise on Saturday November 27, 2010 @12:50AM (#1944402)
> Also, grad students have funding

In the hard sciences, yes. Much less so in other fields.

Re:Screwed up incentives in higher education by thebooktocome on Saturday November 27, 2010 @01:15AM (#1944429)
Tell me about it. My boyfriend is in hospitality management, I'm in mathematics. Whereas I pull in enough to live comfortably in a single bedroom apartment downtown, he's on financial aid and living with two roommates on the outskirts.

It blew my mind when I found out.

Re:Screwed up incentives in higher education by blasdel on Saturday November 27, 2010 @03:19AM (#1944601)
What use would the government have funding market research for hotels? It's blatantly vocational, with even fewer pretenses to academics than MBA programs.

At least english majors don't have a profit motive!

Re:Screwed up incentives in higher education by thebooktocome on Saturday November 27, 2010 @03:57AM (#1944643)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitality_management_studies

Without getting into specifics, my bf's research deals with epidemiology and things related to improving public health in the hospitality/tourism industry. Sure, at the undergrad level it's mostly vocational, but it's not like there's no public benefit to full-fledged academic research in this area.

It wouldn't be a stretch to say that his work will probably have a greater positive net effect on society than mine will. But since math is a "real science", I make the "big bucks" (relative to graduate students, i.e., two steps above ramen-profitable).

Re:Screwed up incentives in higher education by blasdel on Saturday November 27, 2010 @10:18AM (#1945076)
What's keeping him from working primarily in Public Health and getting NSF grants? Does he need access to industry for his research?
Re:Screwed up incentives in higher education by TheEzEzz on Friday November 26, 2010 @09:46PM (#1944108)
What I've learned in grad school is that being knowledgeable and being a good researcher are surprisingly orthogonal. I'm a little bummed that I don't get to spend more time learning, but what it comes down to is that learning is a personal pursuit to be pursued on a person's own time. Academia is about producing original work.
Re:Screwed up incentives in higher education by Untitled on Saturday November 27, 2010 @01:41AM (#1944470)
> Whereas undergrads are coached to write tests we're coached to publish.

That is the big problem. The problem is that the sole method of employee evaluation for University professors (and postdocs - anyone in an academic career) is publications.

This encourages bad publications, a focus on research (or more accurately, publication milling) rather than teaching and a focus on many publications - instead of good research.

At least 99% of conference articles are worthless and 85% of journal articles are crap.

I wonder if the world would not be better served if professors were encouraged to study deeper and target the high-hanging fruits, instead of producing (mostly) worthless research.

Re:Screwed up incentives in higher education by ylem on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:19AM (#1944664)
What are you basing your conclusion on? How do you evaluate the effectiveness of a researcher? Especially in an era where there are often ~200 job applicants for a given position? At one point people simply tried number of publications. But, as you say, many of those publications could be lousy. Thus, the h-index was born (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index) in which not just the number of publications is counted, but also their impact (citations/yr). It's an imperfect system, but it does put more emphasis on higher impact (more cited) publications rather than simple quantity of papers.....
Re:Screwed up incentives in higher education by Untitled on Saturday November 27, 2010 @08:57AM (#1944942)
> which not just the number of publications is counted, but also their impact (citations/yr).

But that is completely flawed! Some research areas (which is inconsequential but easy to do) produces a lot of citations. And what also happens is that people start building research groups which cross-cite each other.

Re:Screwed up incentives in higher education by ylem on Saturday November 27, 2010 @10:44AM (#1945129)
How do you judge that? If you write a paper and no one cites it, is it important (a tree falls in a forest...)? This is a serious question--I agree that h-index is vulnerable to fads, but if one adds aging (the effect of citations decays with time, so if people stop citing the paper when the fad passes, then the h-index decays--for researchers who are post tenure and intend to stay in the field, they can think long-term) then it's hard to think of a better way. There are so many papers produced (the number of researchers is huge) that I don't see a feasible way of judging research outside of using "crowds"--aka citations....I suppose that one could try to look at page-rank (based on citations as links) as a proxy for citations (I think this has been done) and use it to remove the academic equivalent of link farms--but there are legitimate uses of cross-citing. For example, imagine that you have group 1 with technique A and group 2 with technique B that work in a similar problem space. It might be very natural for them to cite each other if they disagree or agree with each other. This may happen several times--it's not malicious, just economics at work (even if both groups could afford both sets of techniques and one of the groups was really good at both techniques, it would make sense for them to only pursue one--comparative advantage)....

What is your solution?