IDK, I think tenure contributes a lot to 1. I understand and agree with a lot of the rationale (academic freedom, etc.) but when you select for people that prioritize, “if I work really hard for 6 years and get lucky, I can never be fired,” you get a lot of dysfunctional individuals and encourage some of their worst impulses.

Should faculty be paid more? Absolutely. Should Ph.D. students be paid more? Absolutely!! But the blanket statement you make in (1) is wrong and strikes me as awfully close to the extreme left-wing and right-wing mindsets of "the system is fucked up beyond repair, all that remains to be done is to tear it down". The reality is more nuanced than this, and the picture you paint of industry is hardly that rosy, even at silver-spoon companies that invest heavily in R&D.

I've spent a lot of time with working for or closely interfacing with a half dozen academic institutions. I left academia by choice -- with multiple TT offers in hand -- so this isn't sour grapes.

I am highly confident in my assessment that the personalities found on the typical R1 tenure track are exactly the sort of personalities I avoid hiring or working with at all costs. There are exceptions, but they prove the rule (and I can often poach them anyways).

I don't think I said anything about industry other than that it pays 3x-5x better than the TT, and I'm pretty darn confident that's true. I am clear-eyed about the issues in industry, but the personalities are much better.

I really do believe that the massive pay disparity between CS industry and CS academia is, in part, a "toxic personality that can't play well with others" tax. And I really do believe that you'd get more mentally/emotionally healthy people on the TT if it paid better.

Anyways, we can agree to disagree, because we agree on the solution in any case.

> I am highly confident in my assessment that the personalities found on the typical R1 tenure track are exactly the sort of personalities I avoid hiring or working with at all costs.

And what is that exactly out of curiosity?

My experience working with a former academic that was awful to work with: Self-absorbed, self-promoting, accomplished next to nothing but talked a big game, shit on everything everyone else did, even though their code ran the business

The pay is not the biggest problem though. Obviously it is a big one, but there's a huge issue with the work culture.

I agree it's a rosy picture of industry, but IME most of the supposed "intellectual freedom" of academia is just a marketing pitch these days. You don't get there until you somehow make tenure, and even then if you're in a high cost field you need to be very high profile if you don't want to be forced to focus on the topics that award grant money. You're interested in narcolepsy? Too bad.

So I consider it a red flag when a PI immediately jumps to say that "yes salaries should be higher but" and then goes on to defend everything else about their current situation.

Like it is ridiculous the amount of self promotion one feels pressured to do on Twitter. Do you not see the problem with authors pushing their work on social media during a supposed double blind review period?

I don't disagree that there is often a lot of bitching without actionable suggestions. But I don't think the characterization in (1) was especially extreme and I don't see the suggestion to burn the whole system to the ground. Personally I think we need more diversity in how academic institutions operate, that doesn't mean that old institutions will disappear.

I'm curious where all the money goes, since student loans are incredibly high but teacher pay is so low. I'm guessing the answer is 'random nonsense that shouldn't matter'.

In my university teaching experience, I found that everyone up the administrative chain to the top gets a cut, with the teaching faculty themselves receiving 1-2% of the annual tuition...