i wasn't inviting anyone. i was responding to downvotes.
and frankly, i don't see why i should be civil to people who mindlessly accuse others of not caring about something that, in fact, is hugely important to them, just to appear cynically cool.
more generally, the problem with hn these days is not a lack of politeness; it is a lack of insight, depth and originality. read any thread here. this kind of cheap, cynical throw-away remark is the bland norm.
maybe you should find some authority figure saying "be smart and care" and try posting that? best of luck...
"i wasn't inviting anyone. i was responding to downvotes."
er... "downvote all you like"?
That sort of remark in response to downmods (or the expectation thereof) is precisely what that line in the guidelines is about. But, if you insist you weren't "inviting", let's look at the next guideline up instead:
Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
"i don't see why i should be civil [...]"
Because the guidelines of this community ask that you be civil, and they don't say "oh, but feel free to ignore that bit if someone annoys you". Because fighting incivility with incivility is the path to flamewars. Because, if you don't like the behaviour an online community expects of its participants, you can either: leave, and make everyone involved happier; or: stick around, flout the local etiquette, and piss everyone involved off.
"more generally, the problem with hn these days [...] read any thread here. this kind of cheap, cynical throw-away remark is the bland norm."
Okay, let's take this submission by way of example. I see... exactly one "cheap, cynical throw-away remark", the very one you replied to -- and it's been modded down to near the bottom. That's the usual pattern I see: sure, there's a little vacuous snark, but it's far from the majority of comments, and it tends to get downmodded pretty hard.
Regardless, if you're so convinced that HN has such endemic problems -- well, my comment earlier "if you don't like the behaviour an online community expects of its participants ..." applies equally well to "if you don't like the discussions on an online community...".
"maybe you should find some authority figure [...]"
Oh, my post wasn't about invoking authority. They're guidelines, not rules. But nice job trying to paint me as a cowed bootlicker because I pointed out you were either unaware of or wilfully disregarding them.
It's worth noting that the poster you responded to said "from the faculty's perspective", not "from their adviser's perspective".
Individual faculty members care a lot for their individual grad students, and generally go out of their way to help them. They academic system as a whole (which is partially run by the faculty) treats them pretty poorly (long hours, way below market pay--often near the poverty line and largely without benefits that well educated professionals [which is what grad students are] would expect in any other job).
No one is saying that your partner is a bad person. They're saying that the system is a bad system.
Because it's the protocol here. Because it contributes negatively to the discussion. Because it makes you, and indirectly your point, look worse.
>it is a lack of insight, depth and originality
Perhaps your own bias is preventing you from understanding their perspective? You're not the only person here who knows someone in academia, there is a very wide range in the way professors deal with their students, especially across fields and departments.
> and frankly, i don't see why i should be civil to people who mindlessly accuse others of not caring about something that, in fact, is hugely important to them, just to appear cynically cool.
Because civility is the foundation of civilization, i.e., society, even in the microcosm. If you disagree, consider how to carefully respond and present a reasonable argument. This is the stated standard for HN.
If you don't like the tone of discourse and feel it could have insight, depth, and originality, please add insight, depth, and originality, in a civil fashion.
Woah, chill man. I was in science, I've seen the ugly side of academia. I'm glad your partner is a good PI...the world needs more of them.
That said, there are plenty of PIs who see grads and post-docs as nothing more than a revolving door of cheap labor. My comment may have been snarky and short, but I stand by the statement and don't apologize for it.
As a whole, academic science is a horribly backward place to work. In my field (biology), most grads stick around because of a misplaced sense of honor/duty/guilt.
"If you can't stay in science, you can't hack it! Now go finish that experiment over the weekend."
I'll add that a lot of them also stick around as they have no other work experience and don't know what else to do.
I actually see this more and more, it seems like getting a PhD is the "well, I don't wanna get a real job yet" pathway, which is really sad. It's also frustrating to work around those people as they have no drive.
That's actually true, for the most part. I don't know about "surrogate kids", but in my experience, most faculty realize that the strongest effect they're going to have is through the students they graduate. They're strongly motivated to graduate their students and make sure those students do well after they've graduated.
why would you write this? faculty themselves are working class. they are more akin to accomplices than masterminds of the system. even if you agree with the analogy of the parent comment. this is emotional and poor analysis. serious money now runs the system, and that is handled by the gov't, the trustees, and the president. very few academics are ever 'fully funded' -- they all must suck at the tit, themselves for future nourishment.
If she's a prof, then she's engaging in the scam that is the current university system. Is she or the other profs you know advocating for the abolition of undergraduate degrees to be replaced by online learning like coursera or udacity. Also, abolishing phds/tenure and replacing with funding their research from kickstarter/indiegogo. Probably not. They might care about their few chosen students (selfishly, for the social company and labor it provides) but they're putting their finger up at the entire rest of the world (which includes potential students that never were, like in africa or india).