Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Although I sympathize with the author, I believe most academics are aware of/experienced all these issues after their first year of PhD. Becoming a professor these days is hyper competitive, you don't accidentally become a prof, or become one by default. So it's a pity that this person would quit over issues that they were aware of from early on.

Regarding papers that shouldn't be papers because it's a waste of resources, I think it's unkind/elitist for someone who rose to a prof position via these resources to then propagate such a sentiment. Only experts and geniuses should attempt to publish? Only people from certain institutions? Why should an author self-censor their own work because one person who chose to be a PC member, to pad their CV (which OP also criticises), doesn't think it's worthy?

In general if people are making poor contributions, their careers in academia will be short-lived, and their individual draining of resources will be minimal. If they get published then it's likely on merit.




Most research papers are just a forced ceremonial sacrifice of time and resources. There is so much junk for every good article.

The PhD should be judged on their work rather than some semirandom publishing process.

Eg. like the normal thing should be one or zero papers published during a technical doctorial thesis and the effort is put into the thesis itself.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: