Once we switch to jobs we are talking about money and power -- pure status becomes secondary.
Possibly, though I suspect status is more important relative to money in motivating employees than is commonly thought.
Its parts where advancement doesn't give you much in the way of money and power -- that is, social sciences [...]
I'm not sure you get a lot more money and power from advancement in other areas of academia. (Unless you count coaching the football team, in US universities. Plenty of money there.) It seems to me that there are better explanations if the hard sciences are less dysfunctional than the soft.
Whether things like
an ever-growing pile of shit research being published as "science"
are evidence that the academic community isn't driven successfully (whether by status or by something else) depends on what you take to be the actual goals of academia as an institution. I agree that if we take those goals to be research that actually uncovers truths, and education that actually improves the minds and the lives of the educated, it's debatable how well academia does.
status is more important
I think power is more important than commonly thought, but I accept that it's not easy to disentangle it from status.
I'm not sure you get a lot more money and power from advancement in other areas of academia.
You do in some, notably law and business. And yes, I'm not saying that's the main explanation why soft sciences do so much worse than hard ones.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "