= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Best career models for doing research? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (999)
First bit of advice: grow up. Be interested in research because you're curious, not because you're special and/or status-seeking. Until the word that comes to mind is "improve" rather than "save" you will be looking at the wrong questions for the wrong reasons.
Oh, absolutely. If you want to be part of academia, you have to be part of academia.
I would replace "might" here with "would."
I think this varies from field to field. Some fields are more biased than others. Math for example is not very biased in that regard. The hard sciences are not as biased also but in order for people to do good work in them they need resources that they are going to have trouble getting outside academia or industry. I suspect (but have no strong evidence) that the "softer" a subject the more likely the journalists are to discriminate based on whether or not a submitter is in academia.
This sounds similar to adoption of pre-prints like ArXiv; in fields where most papers are accepted for publication (I think it's 90% in physics) people use it; in fields where most papers aren't accepted (I think it's 20-30% in some humanities fields) people find them worthless (since a preprint hasn't passed the gatekeeper, and that's actually a significant cull).