TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Academics, we need to talk

141 pointsby ssnover 9 years ago

25 comments

forgottenpassover 9 years ago
<i>Now, I don&#x27;t think all academic research has to be relevant to industry.</i><p>I&#x27;m getting kind of sick of this tactic, where this fake concession is made before going on about how academia isn&#x27;t designed well enough to deliver to industry.<p>If authors of articles like this didn&#x27;t care about the efficiency of academia to deliver them research, what&#x27;s the big deal if there are a bunch of people somewhere running around in circles? Hey, at least the CS academics occasionally produce something useful to industry, which is more than I can say about other groups running in circles. Sure it could be about burning through money, or a real desire to improve the state of CS academia. But if that was the case I&#x27;d expect these articles to have categorically different discussion and calls to action. Or - at the very least - address goals of acedemia other than performing research for industry.<p>I&#x27;ve never been an academic, and never want to be, but even I gave up reading after the &quot;(I know, crazy, right?)&quot; line. At that point, I knew for 100% sure, that the target audience of this article is not academics. Nobody is that much of a condescending prick to the person they&#x27;re trying to persuade. This is not a &quot;we need to talk&quot; conversation this is a &quot;I need to talk at you, so I can show off to other people.&quot;
评论 #10861533 未加载
评论 #10859121 未加载
评论 #10859106 未加载
评论 #10859656 未加载
评论 #10861011 未加载
评论 #10862037 未加载
评论 #10862365 未加载
Fede_Vover 9 years ago
I think he is largely correct in identifying the flaws of &#x27;academic research&#x27;, but he does not spend enough time discussing the whys.<p>Academics are in an insanely competitive environment, where what is rewarded is bringing in grants&#x2F;high impact publications. There are a very select few academics that are so brilliant and have such sterling reputations they can afford to not play this game (like Matt Welsh&#x27;s former advisor) but most young researchers don&#x27;t have this luxury.<p>For example, Peter Higgs, the Nobel prize winner who postulated the existence of his namesake Boson, flat out said that: &quot;I wouldn&#x27;t be productive enough for today&#x27;s academic system&quot; (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;2013&#x2F;dec&#x2F;06&#x2F;peter-higgs-boson-academic-system" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;2013&#x2F;dec&#x2F;06&#x2F;peter-higgs-b...</a>). He spent several years of quiet research without publishing anything to develop his theory - a young professor doing the same now is unthinkable. The most highly successful young scientists I know now are incredibly career driven and optimize ruthlessly for the kind of output that tenure committees are looking for.<p>Basically, if you want researchers to incorporate best practices (tests, version control, well commented code, etc) and to actually attempt ambitious longterm research programmes, make sure that&#x27;s what you reward, and remember you cannot just reward success. By definition, something ambitious has a high possibility of failure - if failing means that your career is destroyed, then people won&#x27;t do it.
评论 #10860611 未加载
评论 #10860729 未加载
samthover 9 years ago
Academic research that unknowingly (or sometimes even knowingly) duplicates secret industry work is much more valuable than this discussion indicates. Sure, it&#x27;s not valuable _to Google_ for someone to publish things they already know. But everyone else benefits. If people at Google want their research to stop being duplicated, they should publish it.<p>Of course, if your goal is that Google adopt your new system in their data centers, then you need to know what they already do. But the problem with that model of research is the initial goal, not the way it&#x27;s currently executed.
评论 #10859206 未加载
muninover 9 years ago
Today, in academia, it&#x27;s considered risky to do research in computer vision, machine learning, or speech processing, for example, because it&#x27;s likely that you will get &quot;out-Googled&quot;. Google probably has an entire team of 20 working on what your one graduate student is doing. They&#x27;ll have petabytes of real data to test against, hundreds of thousands of computers to run their jobs on, and decades of institutional experience. Your graduate student has a macbook air, six months of experience from an internship at Microsoft, and a BS in computer science. If you&#x27;re lucky. They&#x27;re going to lose. They should just go to work at Google.<p>Over time, fields of study become industrialized. There was a time when doing research in computer vision, machine learning, and speech processing was risky because the field was new, difficult to enter, and the prospects for commercialization were slim. That time has passed. Those 20 people working at Google are the people that helped that time pass. One could argue that the place for this work is now in industry - the motivations are all right and the resources and data are aligned to carry the work forward at a rapid pace.<p>This happens in other fields. For example, there&#x27;s some word on the street that DARPA is going to stop funding so much basic research into applied robotics. Industry, they say, has got this covered. You can argue that they&#x27;re right. The commercial sector is starting to get real thirsty for robots. Amazon talks about automated drone delivery. Everyone talks about self driving cars. The military wants to buy automated planes as a purchase, not as a research project. The time for basic research, it seems, is over.<p>As far as I can tell, this happened with systems about fifteen years ago, so the academic activity you see in systems is what is left over after all of the researchers that could do things moved into applying their research in industry. You no longer need to have weird hair and be buried in a basement to think about 20 computers talking to each other in parallel - you can go work at any technology company and think about two million computers talking to each other in parallel, and get paid two orders of magnitude more money. So the people doing systems research in academia are the people that cannot take their systems research into industry. If they could get internships, they would, and then they would get jobs. They haven&#x27;t.
评论 #10859798 未加载
tensorover 9 years ago
&gt; Industry is far more collaborative and credit is widely shared.<p>This couldn&#x27;t be farther from the truth. Your idea&#x27;s are generally credited to the company, which in turn is credited to the CEO or some other high up. On collaboration, it&#x27;s only more collaborative <i>within a given company</i>, and not always even then. Between companies it&#x27;s outright hostile to collaboration by definition.
评论 #10859396 未加载
评论 #10859291 未加载
skywhopperover 9 years ago
&gt; I know this sounds like a waste of time because you probably won&#x27;t get a paper out of it<p>It&#x27;s unfortunate that a &quot;lessons learned&quot; paper summarizing a sabbatical in industry doing customer-facing work would not be publishable. Surely it&#x27;s far more useful to other academics than most papers. It&#x27;d definitely be more broadly relevant.<p>My wife is a professor in a practical field and I&#x27;m always sad to hear what counts as a &quot;good&quot; paper or a publishable article. The big journals in these fields drive the notion of what is and isn&#x27;t legitimate research. That&#x27;s the point where what constitutes career-advancing &quot;academic output&quot; has to be changed. But I&#x27;m not enough of an insider to have any idea of how to go about doing that.
评论 #10859180 未加载
评论 #10862013 未加载
评论 #10858862 未加载
irremediableover 9 years ago
I agree with some of this, but I wonder...<p>&gt; It drives me insane to see papers that claim that some problem is &quot;unsolved&quot; when most of the industry players have already solved it, but they didn&#x27;t happen to write an NSDI or SIGCOMM paper about it.<p>I&#x27;ve seen many examples of industry &quot;solutions&quot; that aren&#x27;t documented, aren&#x27;t published, and aren&#x27;t even validated. There&#x27;s a place for papers like these. I&#x27;m not quite your typical CS researcher (I do applied math and software for medical imaging), so YMMV, but I think this criticism is too harsh.
评论 #10859406 未加载
wfoover 9 years ago
If you&#x27;re doing industry-relevant research and you&#x27;re in academia, leave. Your work can be supported by corporate profits because it is in essence for corporate profit. Get a job in industry, make more money, and make room for academics who want to do honest-to-god academics and work on theory or fundamental research. Or who want to do research relevant to improving society, not improving profit margins.<p>There aren&#x27;t that many professor jobs out there. It&#x27;s unbelievably greedy to be taking one up to do industry&#x27;s dirty work.<p>You can always take an afternoon off a semester here and there to be an adjunct and teach a SE class or give a guest lecture.
评论 #10862053 未加载
评论 #10859698 未加载
sailover 9 years ago
What stood out for me:<p><i>My PhD advisor never seemed to care particularly about publishing papers; rather, he wanted to move the needle for the field, and he did (multiple times).</i><p><i>Racking up publications is fine, but if you want to have impact on the real world, there&#x27;s a lot more you can do.</i>
yarrelover 9 years ago
Clickbaity title aside, this is sound advice for academics who wish to be relevant to industry from someone who has experience in both camps.<p>Other academics, for example those doing &quot;stuff going way beyond where industry is focused today&quot; as the author explicitly states, can safely ignore it.
KKKKkkkk1over 9 years ago
Re collaboration. I work in a government research lab which prides itself on being a collaborative environment. The result is that we publish 10-author papers in which one author is doing all of the work and the other 9 are cheering from the sidelines. I don&#x27;t think this is particular to my lab -- the typical scenario is that 90% of the work on any given project is done by 10% of the people. So when people praise their work environment for being collaborative, I&#x27;m sceptical. I&#x27;d much rather be in a situation where everyone gets the credit they deserve for the work they have actually done.
Fomiteover 9 years ago
&quot;Second: don&#x27;t get hung up on who invents what. Coming from academia, I was trained to fiercely defend my intellectual territory, pissing all over anything that seemed remotely close to my area of interest. Industry is far more collaborative and credit is widely shared.&quot;<p>In my experience, this is only true until there is money to be made. Or more specifically, that industry was more than willing to share <i>credit</i>, but ownership was theirs.
jffover 9 years ago
&gt; Coming from academia, I was trained to fiercely defend my intellectual territory, pissing all over anything that seemed remotely close to my area of interest.<p>Anyone who has ever been through a conference&#x2F;journal submission process knows this pain. You can usually tell from the comments which of the reviewers is working in your field and wants to shut you out.
nitinicsover 9 years ago
I think Industry Research is mostly driven by some constraints that applies to their architecture, their business use-cases and how much the company is willing to spend $$$ on research that adds value to their products or services. Academics on the other hand thinks beyond the box and researches and gives clues to upcoming industries on where the problem might be and how it could be solved, therefore eventually helping Industry grow with validation from the researches and allowing them to put them into &quot;products&quot; and &quot;services&quot;.<p>Therefore, I don&#x27;t think Academics should stop doing what they do (i.e. wander around) and have a laser focus on Industry&#x27;s product-based researches.
woahover 9 years ago
Matt, I was intrigued by your throwaway &quot;not another multi hop routing protocol&quot; comment. As far as I can tell, the field is very slow-moving. The state of the art, Babel, is at least 5 years old and is an incremental improvement on protocols that are at least 20 years old. Some very promising research was done into DHT-based routing with Scalable Source Routing, but this work is now from more than 10 years ago, and interest seems to have dropped off completely.<p>Are there a bunch of protocols that I don&#x27;t know about?<p>Are you maybe referring also to centralized path finding algorithms? This would explain the comment.
评论 #10860676 未加载
AngrySkillzzover 9 years ago
&gt; &quot;Coming from academia, I was trained to fiercely defend my intellectual territory, pissing all over anything that seemed remotely close to my area of interest.&quot;<p>Apparently the author was unable to break that habit.
pklauslerover 9 years ago
Program committees and the conferences they serve may be part of the problem, and hence part of the solution as well. Instead of picking the best N papers so as to fill out a conference schedule, pick the good papers and shorten the conference schedule if the number of good papers is &lt;N. And then raise the standards to meet your expectations of reproducibility, code reviews, unit tests, etc. If a big conference like ISCA were to be shortened by one day by omitting the least worthy papers, you&#x27;d see much better work arriving the next year.
jonsterlingover 9 years ago
Who gives a damn if academic research is relevant to industry? Almost anything that could possibly be relevant to industry is highly uninteresting.<p>Imagine being someone who thinks that Capital could decide what is a good problem to work on...
评论 #10866179 未加载
lpw25over 9 years ago
&gt; I still serve on program committees and review articles for journals and the like.<p>Judging academia from your experience on program committees is like judging the entertainment industry from watching Britain&#x27;s Got Talent.
hnurover 9 years ago
Relevant:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.smbc-comics.com&#x2F;?id=2088" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.smbc-comics.com&#x2F;?id=2088</a>
draw_downover 9 years ago
Translation: Universities should continue on the path to becoming the research arm of industry. Academics should alter what they do and how they think, in order to better suit industry. Academic research does not have value or merit of its own, outside of its usefulness to industry. Impact on the world happens only in an industrial context.
评论 #10859271 未加载
评论 #10859490 未加载
alberteover 9 years ago
#insert standard weekly hackernews attack academia article response here
nijikoover 9 years ago
I think we should talk about the constraints rather than relevancy.
PaulHouleover 9 years ago
I know you Silicon Valley people think that farmers are a bunch of hicks and an easy target to be disrupted.<p>No f-ing way.<p>Cornell University has many departments that are good, but when I look at the agriculture and vet school they are beyond anybody else.<p>Ag schools do research which is relevant to the technological and business problems of their industry. They do plenty of work on genetic engineering, chemistry and work closely with the likes of Monsanto. They are doing a lot for big ag. They also do research to help small farmers beat pests without pesticides, produce and market (delicious!) Halal meat, even help householders same money and have a better lawn. &quot;Organic&quot; and &quot;Alternative&quot; innovations diffuse into the mainstream. Pesticides are expensive to buy and to apply; if there is a cultural tweak that&#x27;s cheaper, they&#x27;ll do it in a flash. When corn prices got high, Cornell promoted dairy farmers to plant cabbages and other crops as an alternative forage.<p>They are always beta testing new crops in our area; Cornell and UNH are finding variants of plants that perform well in the cold Northeast climate, have expanded Wine production and are commercializing new fruits such as the Paw Paw.<p>Their research is relevant, and it is also communicated directly to the public and industry. Cornell Agricultural Extension has an office in every county of the state that you can walk up to and call and get questions answered, go to an event, etc. They work with trade publications, local government.<p>And it is not just New York, they do research on tropical agriculture and run a program to get access to agricultural literature to anyone in poor countries that need it.<p>I would point to that as being a much more real &quot;technology transfer&quot; than the people who are concerned about copyrights and patents.
评论 #10860666 未加载
评论 #10859313 未加载
评论 #10859116 未加载
评论 #10858814 未加载
评论 #10859072 未加载
swehnerover 9 years ago
When you&#x27;re telling other people what they should do, you&#x27;re already lost.<p>I also don&#x27;t feel academia is obliged to any particular promise of delivery, but that&#x27;s kind of independent.
评论 #10859308 未加载