
Self-Criticism and the Academy - JohnHammersley
http://theprofessorisin.com/2016/03/29/self-criticism-and-the-academy-postac-post-by-jessica-langer/
======
haberman
The statements of affirmation at the end of this piece are noble and something
I'm 100% behind, for everybody.

But it troubles me that this author does not see a connection between her work
("reading “against the grain” of dominant cultural or critical texts [...] and
identifying problematic elements in texts") and this atmosphere of
"extraordinarily harsh and total self-criticism" that she rightly identifies
as toxic.

There is nothing wrong with analyzing cultural or critical texts and offering
new perspective on them. And I can't speak to this specific author's work,
because I haven't read any of it.

But in my experience of reading a _lot_ of this cultural criticism, it is
rarely dispassionate analysis. It is usually passing harsh judgment on
whatever it deems "problematic." This judgment is not always overt; it often
takes the form of tying an entire history of slavery and wrong to the actions
of anyone who is perceived as reinforcing any social pattern that can be tied
to historical forms of oppression.

I have compassion for anyone who has gotten to the point that they can't
recognize their own goodness and accomplishments. But how much of that result
has come from subscribing to a system of thought where any misstep could mean
that you too have become "problematic"?

These writers have constructed a new story of "original sin," but this time
there is no Jesus to wash it all away. And their "Garden of Eden" \-- a world
where nothing is "problematic" \-- is just as much of a fairy tale as Genesis.

------
shas3
Academia has the most severe hierarchical system out there. There is also an
insane amount of unjustified credentialism. Unjustified because so much
depends on luck that things like " _swoon_ that researcher published in PNAS"
are misguided. I actually heard someone doing basic science in an elite school
say this, "That guy's research is garbage, he publishes in Nature Scientific
Reports, which is a junk journal compared to Nature and Science where we
publish."

Then there's basic science people shitting on engineering, which is probably
one of the dumbest forms of elitism I've encountered.

And, there is the most significant hierarchy of all: which university you are
affiliated with. Academics who hit it big in the tenure track job hunt quickly
forget the role of luck in deciding which university hires them and shit on
folks from lower ranked universities.

Frankly, the capitalist structure of industry discourages these kinds of
hierarchies with egalitarian targets like revenue (and schmoozing) deciding
your worth than other things.

~~~
_delirium
I haven't found academia exceptionally hierarchical in computer science
(though I'm not full-time in it at the moment). Even quite famous people tend
to be pretty accessible, people take your talks at conferences seriously
regardless of what university you come from, etc. There is definitely _some_
hierarchy, but if anything it's precisely because of the "capitalist
structure" you mention, which big universities are definitely not immune to.
There are some power differentials especially around money, with grad students
needing to work for a well-funded lab to get paid, which gives power to
professors who have lots of money (depending on the area, that usually comes
from either grants or corporate funding).

In fact at AI conferences, the non-academics are _way_ more hierarchical about
academia than the people actually in academia are. Journalists, investors,
recruiters, and industry consultants who show up to a conference like AAAI or
ICML seem to really care about people's pedigrees, especially impressed by
names like MIT and Stanford. Professors are more likely to choose what talks
to go to based on sub-area, talk title, or knowing a specific person, rather
than going by institutional affiliation.

~~~
shas3
I have hovered in EE, CS, and math circles. I find CS and math to be made up
of more genuinely curious folks than EE. But this comment and my parent
comment are just a few points of observations, too few to generalize from.

But, once you get into the grants and peer review game, connections and
credentials, unfortunately, matter a lot. It is not explicit in that no one
says "hey you are from XYZ university, hence I am rejecting your paper." What
happens commonly is that for peer-reviewers opinions are colored by your
credentials. My hypothesis is this: if one were to control for quality of
paper, a credentialed or pedigreed author's paper is likelier to get accepted
than the non-credentialed ones.

There are many exceptions and there are deliberate programs like EPSCOR (for
grants) to prevent such things from happening, but the inequality exists
nonetheless. The inequality is sometimes justified, sometimes not.

~~~
pgbovine
I obviously can't speak for other fields, but at least in my field, "peer
review" means that the people reviewing your papers are from all kinds of
academic (and sometimes industry) settings; it's not like it's just a bunch of
MIT professors criticizing all submissions and discriminating based on the
authors' credentials. For instance, here is a program committee that I'm on
right now for a top conference in my sub-field ... you can see for yourself
which institutions people come from:

[http://www.educationaldatamining.org/EDM2016/committees.html](http://www.educationaldatamining.org/EDM2016/committees.html)

The chances of your paper being reviewed exclusively by "top credential"
people (whatever that means) is astonishingly low; reviewers come from all
sorts of institutions around the world. Even if someone exhibited an "elitist"
opinion in discussions, they would be summarily shot down by the _majority_ of
people on the committee, who are not from top-ranked institutions. Again,
N=small personal anecdotes, but in paper/grant review meetings I've sat on,
I've never seen this to be an issue simply because most members are not from
top-ranked institutions.

The same is true for NSF grant reviewing in the U.S.. Again, different funding
agencies have different models, but the NSF is a peer-based model just like
papers.

~~~
shas3
I didn't claim anything about the peer reviewers' credentials! I said that if
a person is from a big shot pedigree or from a top school, it certainly helps
in a situation where a paper or proposal is as good. It is a common flaw in
academia to pay too much attention to one's pedigree or affiliations. In my
experience it is quite common to hear people say admiringly, "XYZ is
Big_Shot's student" and so on. It is sometimes justified to attach importance
to pedigree, sometimes it's not.

------
tominous
When I was a student (undergrad and postgrad) I liked the constant judgement
and competition. It can be quite addictive if you're good at it. Even the
subjective assessments where half the game is figuring out and playing to the
lecturer's biases, which I imagine is quite a bit like the academic review
process.

In the end though I do prefer working commercially, in a field where I can get
intrinsic satisfaction from solving real-world problems instead of just having
my name at the top of a list or being judged worthy by my peers.

(P.S. Not wanting to be too critical, but this page is almost impossible to
read on mobile due to all of the pop-overs coming from different directions.)

~~~
yodsanklai
> When I was a student (undergrad and postgrad) I liked the constant judgement
> and competition. It can be quite addictive if you're good at it

The problem is that you're never good enough. Considering research is global
competition, it's likely that there will be a bunch of people much better than
you, in more prestigious institutions. They will be very critical of your
work. Some will dismiss your work publicly in conferences or seminars and so
on... not my idea of fun :)

> In the end though I do prefer working commercially, in a field where I can
> get intrinsic satisfaction from solving real-world problems instead of just
> having my name at the top of a list or being judged worthy by my peers.

It's possible to do both. Some researchers do try to solve real-world problems
:)

~~~
tominous
I'm not trying to minimise the real-world impact of research! I guess I'm
saying in some fields (e.g. IT, and startups in particular) there is much
tighter feedback between ability+effort and real-world results.

I can imagine two situations as a researcher where constant criticism is
damaging. (a) If you've built your self-image on being the best, and suddenly
you're a small fish in a big pond, you're left with not much. (b) If you want
to make a real difference but the culture of negativity/elitism holds you
back, you end up frustrated.

But if you are actually making a difference then you can probably withstand
any amount of sniping!

------
f_allwein
Also, people inside academia have this strong tendency to say negative things
about each other's work for the sake of supplying constructive criticism. As
the article points out, this is all well, but we should also develop a habit
of saying something positive every now and then.

~~~
justicezyx
My experience is that people are generally very positive towards their peers.

But, the professors are definitely too harsh on graduate students. We have to
know that graduate students are the ones doing the actual research work most
of time. And this probably is more important than what the article suggests.

~~~
leemailll
It is even worse in some fields the major workforce is post docs, who
basically can't find a job without be cheap labor for a few more years

------
leemailll
The peer review process of publishing academic papers is basically a process
full of criticism. And this is the heart of academia

------
ThomPete
One of the major flaws I find with academia these days is the almost obsessive
focus on critical thinking rather than constructive thinking.

It is almost a given that you need to be able to dissect any intellectual
claim but what I have found often is that academics are less good (in general)
about making decisions. I.e. putting forward a proposition for others to
critique.

This has created a whole breed of corporate academics who survive and often
climb the corporate latters purely by pointing at the wholes in the cheese
rather than fixing them or creating a cheese without any whole in it.

~~~
swsieber
[the evil of the pessimist is]

not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he
chastises . . . [In being the so-called ‘candid friend,’ the pessimist is not
really candid.] He is keeping something back—in his own gloomy pleasure in
saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help.
. . . He is using the ugly knowledge which was allowed him [in order] to
strengthen the army, to discourage people from joining it.

\- G. K. Chesterton

------
yodsanklai
I can totally relate to what is said in this article. I find this constant
competition in academia very tiring and to me this is the worst part of the
job.

Besides I noticed many researchers are very dismissive of their colleagues
work. I often hear things like "this guy has been working exclusively on
abstract interpretation, he should open himself to other ideas", coming from
the guy that has been working exclusively on timed automatas.

------
paulpauper
Despite all the news over 'safe spaces' and SJWs on campus, the academic
process itself (including peer review, tenure, and other aspect) tends to be
very illiberal. Capitalism tries to make everything fast, efficiently and easy
(provided there is a market) but academia can be frustratingly bureaucratic in
its effort to be 'above' money.

------
bitwize
"...so as to develop total devotion to the system on pain of failure that is
not only professional but personal."

You can't publish these results, you can't publish shit, you ARE shit, hit the
bricks because you are DONE.

~~~
alecbaldwinlol
The real favor is to deny tenure for your fuckin ass, cause a loser is a
loser!

I drove here in a 2014 Subaru, you rode here on a bike, THAT'S my name!

EDIT: btw for everyone downvoting me- tech industry is bullshit, funding down,
layoffs coming, and you are worried about DOWNVOTING quality comedic content??

You think this site still has a purpose?! LOL!

~~~
music
Bike? Luxurious. I have to walk.

~~~
bitwize
Well, it _is_ fuck or walk...

------
emblem21
“Academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small."

------
mirimir
I can't speak for liberal arts or engineering, but falsification is simply how
science works. One just can't take it personally.

------
return0
Yeah lets talk about safe spaces and trigger warnings. This stinks of 2015.

~~~
drdeca
"This stinks of <last year>." seems like a somewhat strange statement to me.

~~~
return0
There was a lot of news about creating academic "safe spaces" last year. This
article seems to want to ride on the same bandwagon. I found it onesided and
useless

~~~
alecbaldwinlol
It's bleeding through to the corporate world too. What an amazing time to be
alive!

