
How Academia Resembles a Drug Gang (2013) - 7402
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/12/11/how-academia-resembles-a-drug-gang/
======
danieltillett
As some one who managed to succeed in the academic rat race (tenured
professor) and who quit to do more productive things, my feeling is academia
is more like cult. When inside it you believe you are doing important things,
and on occasion you actual do (i.e. teaching and research), but the important
activities are basically a hobby you fit around your full-time job of
administration and politics. Once outside you realise you were wasting your
life on trivia of the most meaningless kind. While I miss some parts I have to
say I am glad to be out.

~~~
tdumitrescu
My experience was very similar. While I was in the land of postdoc fellowships
and part-time teaching, it was a great job where I gladly accepted low pay in
return for freedom to work on my own projects and structure my time
independently. By the time I was a few years into a tenured post (at a
European university), the amount of administrative drudgery, committees,
useless meetings and other BS entirely unrelated to my skillset as an academic
had grown tremendously - enough to make it quite easy to quit when I saw
opportunities in the software industry. When I look back at it now, I still
bristle a little at how much worse it got over the years, almost feels like a
bait-and-switch. I have several other friends who've since left their tenured
positions while still young, all of us with this feeling that we were stuck in
a type of work we really hadn't signed up for.

~~~
johnchristopher
Out of curiosity, how old were you when you left ?

~~~
tdumitrescu
34\. other profs i've known who quit academia were in their late 30s/early
40s. (and of course a ton of grad students and undergrads who stopped much
earlier, and people who never got jobs and eventually worked outside academia,
but that's much more common)

------
mangecoeur
Interesting - some important points overlooked:

\- They assume that for everyone doing a PhD there is an equivalently
attractive job waiting for them. However, many young people going doing PhDs
(especially in the countries highlighted, Portugal, Greece, Slovakia) aren't
choosing between a steady job and the uncertainty of PhD - there are often
either no jobs available or very unattractive ones (e.g. working well below
your skill level, poor working conditions, etc). A PhD offers an interesting
hybrid of employment and training while offering more intellectual freedom and
stimulation than your average desk job (note to Americans - most PhDs in
Europe come with some form salary/scholarship/stipend).

\- They seem to assume that everyone going into academia from the PhD level up
is aiming to remain there. Many people do PhDs and then go to industries -
certain industries (e.g. biosciences) pretty much require a PhD if you want to
get anywhere interesting.

Both these significantly weaken the drug gang analogy, since it rests on the
premise that there is a big pool of people joining at the bottom of the
pyramid with the principal aim of clawing their way to the top. The
motivations for doing a PhD however are far more diverse, from being simply a
more interesting (or simply available) option that regular work (flexible
hours, intellectual freedom, and a prestigious title at the end of it) to
being a requirement to work in a particular industry. Certainly in my
experience, only a minority of people starting PhDs do so with the explicit
goal of attaining tenured professorship.

~~~
roadnottaken
PhD programs in the sciences (e.g. bio, chem, phys) in the US also come with a
salary/stipend that one can live off of.

~~~
kyllo
And any professor will tell you that if you have to pay for your PhD yourself,
you shouldn't be doing a PhD in the first place.

------
netcan
I think this article is reaching a bit. There are some interesting things
about this drug dealer model though. Why do the bottom rungs agree to play
this game? I think the dynamic manifests in a lot of highly aspirational
industries. The money, prestige and such going to the slim top layer can act
in lieu of benefits going directly to participants.

Many one-on-one sports are examples. Floyd Mayweather might make close to
$500m in career prize winning. The "contenders" who fight him (apart from big
names like Manny Pacquiao or Oscar De La Hoya) under him will earn ˜1% of
that. Beneath them, "journeymen" (maybe the top 25 in a weight class) fighters
often make something like that $3 an hours wage.

I suspect acting is often similar. Music, stand up comedy and arts in general.
The possibility of attaining the prestige and earning of Tom Cruise keeps
aspiring actors in gyms and auditions, trying to climb the steep ladder.

Apart from all that, there is definitely something in the zeitgeist about
universities and academia. I think they are in for a tsunami of change
sometime in the next generation. This is just one example. The weird
entanglement of research and education. The trading on Prestige. The dynamism
of competition under them (non academic education, bootcamps, online learning,
etc.).

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
All the arts have brutal power law income distributions, with a handful of
winners making $$$$$ while most people don't break even.

People who do well in the arts have a rare combination of charisma,
marketing/networking skills, existing social contacts, persistence, location,
luck, and talent - which often belongs at the end of the list, unfortunately.

Ironically, academia is one of the few places where you can work in the arts
and do better than average. You can get real funding for arts research,
especially if there's a technical angle.

Of course you don't usually have an audience - unless you count other
academics - but not everyone loses sleep over that. And there's often a
special policy niche for academic art. It's a kind of "Look at us as a country
- we totally do serious difficult art" cultural brag.

It seems to be important to fill that niche. What it gets filled with isn't so
important.

------
lukasm
>The reason for this is that the prospect of future wealth, rather than
current income and working conditions, is the main driver for people to stay
in the business: low-level drug sellers forgo current income for (uncertain)
future wealth.

That's description of statups.

~~~
stared
With startups, you can pivot (with academia you can too, but it's rather 3-5
years).

With startups, you can fail (and try again); in academia, if you fail, you
fail.

In short: with startups, if something is not working (or you totally lost
belief in it), you can quit a project without quitting startups for good. In
academia, if you want to stay, you often need to stay in a miserable
conditions 1-3 more years (e.g. to finish PhD, postdoc, etc), just not to get
kicked out for good.

Moreover, with startups, you can start your group being 20, without anyone's
blessing.

~~~
rsfern
I have several friends who have successfully navigated switching research
groups and even departments in the middle of their PhD work. I also know a few
who didn't manage such a graceful transition, but it's definitely possible to
pivot during the PhD without giving up on the degree and research career.

~~~
stared
Perhaps it's possible under some circumstances. But I spent 3 years more than
I wished to (as I see it now, I should have quitted, but by that time I
thought that academia was the only intellectually stimulating option).

Change universities (Europe) would cost me at least a year, plus scrapping all
previous progress. Plus, with getting a poor recommendation letter (more than
likely when resigning) I would need to go a tier down.

I envied software engineers, who (if things do not work) could change their
place in mater of weeks... and have money to support them for much longer, if
there were need.

I know people who change, but it was never a trivial thing. (Maybe except when
within a department.)

Now (living as a freelancer) I lover the freedom and flexibility. And,
curiously enough, I get more of intellectual inspiration.

------
joesmo
"There is an expanding mass of rank-and-file “outsiders” ready to forgo income
for future wealth, and a small core of “insiders” securing incomes largely at
the expense of the mass. We can call it a winner-take-all market."

Interesting. If I didn't know any better, I thought he was describing the
situation with many tech startups. The investors have all the money, the
founders are the only ones with any hope of making good money, and the rest
just serve as cannon fodder in the investors' and founders' games. This
actually seems to be a common pattern in quite a few other industries as well,
and from the perspective of an established business owner, is the ideal
structure of __any __business.

~~~
ghaff
The difference is the power law chart of the incomes. Yes, the potential for
the really big wins in startups is mostly with the investors and the founders.
But most of the "cannon fodder" as you call them are still making what most
would consider respectable salaries. There are exceptions certainly but, by
contrast, most would-be actors who haven't hit a relatively high level of
success are waiting tables or the equivalent.

------
stared
Previous submission:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6825534](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6825534)
(100+ votes, ~2 years ago) with a different address:
[https://alexandreafonso.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/how-
academi...](https://alexandreafonso.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/how-academia-
resembles-a-drug-gang/)

------
joosters
So now every organisational structure that has more people at the bottom than
at the top resembles a drug gang?

I blame Levitt.

~~~
emiliobumachar
Just to let others in on the reference, Levitt is the co-author of
Freakonomics, a book that popularized, among other concepts, research showing
that the average drug dealer gets terrible payment for the risk they take, and
only stays in the business due to unrealistic hope of one day becoming one of
the few drug lords that make insane amounts of cash.

------
jqm
How Academia does not resemble a drug gang:

1)Drug gangs don't have an excess of lazy administrative support staff.

2)Drug gangs actually have to deliver some drugs at some point.

3)The politics of drug gangs are less vicious and there is better teamwork.

------
FLengyel
I left after being continually relegated to low-academic value technical
support work for established academics. Last year I turned down four
opportunities to participate in NSF grants, and this year three so far. It is
impossible to advance in an academic career on the basis of the technical
skills you used to help your colleagues. Academia is winner-take-all. I
decided it was pointless to compound my losses by supporting the winners.

------
j2kun
The article claims a problem is that there aren't enough mid-tier positions,
for those who have just acquired a PhD but aren't yet suitable for a
professorship.

What sort of solution could one imagine? Outside of post-doctorate positions,
there's neither funding nor desire for the kind of research that you need to
further an academic career.

~~~
barry-cotter
Reduce the number of graduate programme places so the over supply is less,
either by reducing the number of places reasonably evenly across the system or
by closing marginal doctoral programmes altogether. There are a lot of
universities that graduate Ph.D.s who have virtually no chance of a decent
academic position. The first tier universities graduate more than 5 times as
many Drs. each year than are necessary to replace their own staff, some much
more than that. You need to be an extremely strong second tier graduate to
have a chance of getting a position at the same level, never mind going up.
Third tier or below are basically exploited for teaching and research labour
and then gradually eased out of the system. People should not enter these
programmes expecting to get an academic job. Those who enter those programmes
would be better off getting a J.D., which is damning. A J.D. is a horrible
idea for most people but at least it only wastes 3 years and less than $200K.
Most people who enter a Ph.D. programme drop out, in most disciplines, and
some people who do graduate take up to ten years.

~~~
FLengyel
This is correct. In retrospect my math Ph.D. was a waste of time. There have
been proposals over the years on how to address the overabundance of PhDs. One
approach seems to have been widely and independently adopted: advise those
responsible for easing out the exploited to read Erving Goffman's _On Cooling
the Mark Out: Some aspects of adaptation to Failure_ [1, 2].

1\. [http://www.tau.ac.il/~algazi/mat/Goffman--
Cooling.htm](http://www.tau.ac.il/~algazi/mat/Goffman--Cooling.htm)

2\. [http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2002/10/31/cooling-
the-...](http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2002/10/31/cooling-the-mark-
out/)

------
cafebeen
To be fair, a similar pattern might be present in other industries as well,
e.g. finance, food services, manufacturing, etc. I think the point the author
is trying to make though is that academia is _uniquely_ like a drug gang, but
I'd don't see anything to justify that. My guess is that you'd find something
like this in every large and hierarchically-organized system. That's not to
say this is a good way to do things though...

------
throwaway009382
I am both an aspiring graduate student (though, maybe not after reading this)
and grew up with many friends who were/are still in organized crews, plus did
some delivery for a few years myself when I was a foolish 17 yr old.

Most delivery driver jobs here pay $150-200/day depending on how busy the line
is, and the people that work them usually aren't looking to move up instead
they want cash wages for easy work, since most have records and can't get
decent paying jobs anywhere else. The article is correct almost all these
guy's still live with their parents. There were only 2 guys I knew that
actually thought they could move up and make big money while the rest of us
accepted we were only ever going to make $200/day and were essentially
contractors, we were never privy to any gang internal business.

Gangs no longer hold drugs when corner selling (where you make the most money,
selling by the point at full street value), they pay an addict in drugs to do
this while they run security watching over the operation to prevent robberies.
Street enforcer is where you start if you want to move up since you are
essentially managing operations instead of just a delivery boy. You also hang
around the top people as they call on you to come along to jack rival
operations. These thugs get a lucrative percentage when they steal drugs off
other crews and pass them down to the delivery lines to sell so are making
real money, since it seemed every enforcer in my little dope crew was bombing
around in a Porsche Cayenne customized to be bullet resistant with hidden
compartments installed to hide their handguns, lived in huge houses by
themselves and were always decked out in latest heatbag designer clothes. I
don't remember any of these guys being broke, and technically they are the
lowest rung on the gang hierarchy since the drivers are just contractors.

That was back in 2005 though, and now the vast majority of gangs are not
handling any product here. Their income model is intimidation and extortion.
It's far easier to wave a gun around on the street and tax everybody in the
drug business than it is to put in work building up a line or managing
operations. They don't even steal each other's lines anymore, just demand a
percentage of the profits. As a result street violence has actually declined,
since jackings and hits decreased and most beefs are now solved by passing
money over a table. These independent dealers are also way better at selling
drugs than gangs, so bring in much more money and the dominant gang that taxes
them also offers protection from robbery (we are robbing you to offer our
robbery prevention services).

This gangster method is more profitable, has almost no startup costs besides
needing vehicles and guns, is much harder to prosecute since they never are
directly involved in narcotics trade, and has an endless recruitment pool
inside prisons to replenish ranks faster and with tougher recruits. It's also
how all those Mexican border cartels operate. They are merely taxing the
smuggling routes into the US skimming the shipments of Gulf and Sinaloa
cartels. Those cartels have to build manufacturing, supply chain and retail
while paying off politicians and police while the thug at the border just
needs a gun, and is impossible to get rid of since they hold down their
territory hard.

tl;dr Stepping into a gang as the new lowest position pays much more now, and
is almost a guaranteed ladder to better positions since narcotics handling has
all been outsourced as drug dealers are good at being drug dealers, and
gangsters are good at being thugs.

~~~
avn2109
Very underrated comment, by far the best in the thread. Sounds like drug gangs
are borrowing the business model of governments.

~~~
throwaway009382
I guess they are like a government, in that they can afford to wait out
disputes while the drug businesses can't. Every once in a while these other
groups will try and get rid of the dominant extortion gang but since they live
off skimming, and their business model is a vehicle and a gun, they can afford
to go to war while the drug dealers and cartels all will be losing money and
cannot sustain a lengthy conflict. The narcotics businesses have extensive
bribery networks they need to keep operating to survive and any interference
in the income will threaten to unravel it all. Some of them have minimum
wholesale they need to buy every month in order to keep up supply, and
customers will also start calling competitor lines if deliveries are stopped.

Even worse, when the heat on the streets is so hot during a war from all the
shootings and police are everywhere, not much business can happen so the
extortion crews turn to contract hits for income. For $10-15k you can pay them
to kill off one of your rival drug dealers, potential informants or even
people in your own delivery crew so you can move up and take their place. So
while they are fighting off a rival takeover they are also open for local
business dropping bodies all over the streets and blaming it on the invading
gang, which police then turn their attention to, and are getting paid while
the rivals/cartels are bleeding money. Eventually they have no choice but to
give up the dispute to save their own business from extinction, much like how
businesses have to settle in court when defending against government lawsuits
and can't afford too much delay.

What is really surreal about the black market is after these violent outbursts
everything is simply settled by a payment of back taxes owed and you just go
back to work like nothing happened. One of the enforcers who managed us was
shot at repeatedly by somebody he knew living in the same immediate
neighborhood during one of these wars and next week it was all cleared up
above us by whoever was in charge and beefs squashed. He'd still see the guy
on a regular basis, no hard feelings, only business.

------
marze
Multi-level marketing schemes are similar, in that they exploit people
leveraging those people's desire to improve their situation (or dream to get
paid while doing nothing).

The film industry is similar, you work for low wages, hoping you will make it
to the big time.

So is athletics, work for free at college, hope you make it to the NFL or
wherever.

This pattern may be more common than most realize.

------
rdfi
One thing that should also be emphasized is that there is a great number of
PhD candidates that never actually finish, in some universities that number is
more than half. Many of these, before quitting, teach to help pay tuition and
do all sorts of tasks for their department/supervisor that are not related or
help them finish their PhD.

------
larrys
"The reason for this is that the prospect of future wealth, rather than
current income and working conditions, is the main driver for people to stay
in the business: low-level drug sellers forgo current income for (uncertain)
future wealth. "

May be true but also could be that the person who decides to sell drugs for
less than they could make at McDonalds couldn't even land a job at McDonalds
or any other traditional employment. Similar to how many people go into
business for themselves because they are not cut out to work for anybody else.
It's not all about money and future prospects.

------
stretchwithme
Isn't medicine like this to a degree? The interns and resident make very
little per hour, work long hours and have little control over anything.

Sounds like apprenticeship as well.

Why do people put up with it? Because its very difficult to leave and start a
competing enterprise. There's either a contract that locks you in or licensing
that locks you out.

Or you need government funding to compete with those who have government
funding, so you must suck up to the powers that be, who are all in bed
together.

~~~
ghaff
Not at all. Interns and residents have a reasonably high probability [1] of
becoming fairly well-compensated licensed physicians if they choose to follow
their program through to the end. This isn't an argument about long and even
grueling apprenticeships with modest compensation. It's about how even those
who make it through such an apprenticeship in some professions will mostly not
find a job at the end--which isn't the case with doctors.

BTW, I'm not sure I believe the drug dealer/actor/pro athlete thought really
applies to academia--even if it's true that PhD degrees in many fields
probably don't have a great ROI and aren't likely to result in a tenured
position.

[1] I don't know the numbers but I have no reason to think a lot of people,
especially from better programs, are forced out during internship or
residency.

------
jcslzr
every company resembles a drug gang

------
gfosco
Please update the title, article is from 2013.

~~~
barry-cotter
Nothing of note for the analysis has changed.

~~~
roghummal
Is that an official reason?

------
nice1
If someone comes up with a better system, it will be adopted. It is very hard
to determine who has the capacity to be a Professor. The current system works
fine most of the time. It is true that crackpots get through on occasion, but
the vast majority of professorial appointments are reasonable.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"If someone comes up with a better system, it will be adopted."

Academia moves very, very slowly. Stuff remains unchanged for _centuries_ ,
just because that's the way it's always been done.

For instance, the lecture model was adopted when books were hand-written and
very expensive -- basically the lecturer (in some institutions, actually
called "reader") would read the text very slowly and distinctly, while the
students would copy it down verbatim. At the end of the term the students
would have their own copy of the text.

We've had printing presses for quite some time now, but the lecture lives on.

Law and religion are similar. Note that those institutions also still retain
many medieval trappings, both intellectual and physical (robes, funny hats,
etc.)

~~~
raincom
Thanks for enlightenment. I used to wonder about the title "Reader" in
commonwealth countries. Now your elucidation makes sense.

