On #ShutDownSTEM #ShutDownAcademia day, some rambling thoughts on academia, inequalities, and power differentials. I've expressed some of these thoughts before, but it is a good idea to stop and reflect on this day.
The first thing that comes to mind after my short four years as a professor is that academia depends too much on volunteer work. Our work, and our time, is massively undervalued. Our students should get paid more. Professors should get paid more, especially in non STEAm areas.
I see this as a kind of exploitation: exploiting people's love for science and sincere desire to contribute to keep this giant academic machine running.
The folks who do the most work - the students - get paid the least, while publishers like Elsevier capture profits.
The folks who do the most work - the students - get paid the least, while publishers like Elsevier capture profits.
At least in my field, the work that students is easily at the level of what junior (and sometimes senior) engineers do at software companies. Yet they are paid a pittance. This has to change: single students can live off the meager stipends, but not families, and not everywhere.
The label of "student" is conveniently applied whenever we want to underpay students, and "collaborators" applied whenever we want to feel good about what we do.
Academia is also obsessed with the "bar", as if nothing else matters. I can guarantee you every discussion about diversity and inclusion would have featured this "bar".
There is not enough emphasis on the fact that people can grow if nurtured.
There is not enough emphasis on the fact that people can grow if nurtured.
If I could change one thing about academia, and one thing only, I would make all activities paid. If there is no money to do something, that activity should stop.
Obviously, I'm making sweeping generalizations in this tweet thread (its a rant). It is not true everywhere, and many good folks are trying to change the system. But the systematic problems remain.
Professors have way too much power in the current academic structure. They face almost no consequences for their actions.
In a way, this is not very different from the police. Such power differentials and immunity always lead to abuse.
In a way, this is not very different from the police. Such power differentials and immunity always lead to abuse.
This will not change unless students have some real power in academia. But those with power are always loath to give it up. I do not know if protests like today will erupt at some point due to these problems.
I also see power differentials between reviewers and authors. Authors are required to submit a rebuttal, but reviewers are not required to respond to them in their reviews ("the reviewers have no time").
Reviewers face very little penalty for bad reviews, reviews that could significantly set back somebody's career. A lot of slack is given to reviewers: "oh they must have had a bad day". No slack is given to authors.
There is also little to no importance given to the fact that arbitrary decisions may significantly affect somebody's life. A borderline paper might be arbitrarily accepted or rejected. These outcomes are viewed equivalent, with no regard to how it changes a students life.
Our incentive structures are broken. In a world where only publications matter, and you need to publish as many as fast as you can, rational actors will definitely game the system.
There will be those who will protest "but its the quality and not number of papers"! But they will also display their h-index proudly on their page, and talk about "X papers accepted at Y conf". The truth is that number of papers does matter, to an extent.
One of my favorite quotes from recent times is @zeynep's "A good society is one where nobody has to be a hero".
Right now, academia depends on everyone being a hero to function correctly.
Right now, academia depends on everyone being a hero to function correctly.
