I have to agree with Michael Magoon - this article did a great job of reviewing some of the many reasons I left academia. Other reasons: toxic department politics, soul-crushing committee meetings, racism, sexism, how the WEIRD bias in psychology makes most of our findings questionable.... Once I had tenure, I was free to breathe and think and realize, "I spend most of my time doing things I don't enjoy." Thanks for this, Rob.
Thanks for the kind words, Valerie. Yeah, those are all good reasons. I have been wondering about how the ongoing political changes at places like Harvard, MIT, and, yes, Penn, have changed the experience of faculty members over the last five years. One note that I’ve started to hear a little more is that people once proud of being at such and such an institution, now are somewhat embarrassed by it, at least in some contexts. But, to your point, I wonder how the new stresses impinge on the day-to-day experience. Would be interesting to know. Again thanks for the comment!
This article makes me so glad that I left academia. It was bad in the 90s, and it is far worse now.
I never got a single article or book through the process, and after a few years realized that I did not really care about getting tenure anyway.
So I went into digital technology, made 3x times the money, and just kept reading and writing exactly what I wanted and when I wanted in my free time. I retired early, have published two books since then, and I write for Substack. Far better!
I honestly don’t know why anyone would go into academia now, except to avoid getting a “real job.” Very sad, because we need a productive academia, but I am not sure if we can get it.
I’ve been puzzling over the question of who belongs in academia. I keep returning to the grad students I encountered at UCSB in social psychology, focusing on stereotype threat, implicit racism, and the like. My sense is that they are quite happy in their jobs. If your goal is to do progressive activism clothed in the ornaments of scholarship—without the demands of rigor—academia might be a good place for you, at least in the humanities and social sciences.
Those activists should go off and form their own political party, and let true scholars and teachers continue their work. The ones you mention who want to pretend to be scholars corrupt the entire profession. Because of them, I don’t know if academia will exist in 20 years.
"They all learn the same basic foundational ideas, usually in microeconomics and macroeconomics classes as undergraduates".
Funny you should say that. I'm one of the few economists who thinks that the dominance of theory is a major problem for it. Here's a taste of what I mean.
Yes, I think that’s an excellent work. It gives a very good sense of how computational mechanisms can generate complex functional behaviors with relatively straightforward sensors and actuators. I agree that would be an excellent choice for an introductory class in psychology.
I think (maybe just hope) that it is slowly dawning on Western publics that the Academy that they have learned to revere as a magnet for the brightest and most independent-minded in society has in fact become a magnet for third-rate 'social justice' group-thinkers.
I hope so too. Certainly it seems as if there is a lot more interest in what is happening on Western campuses. I also think and hope that real change is in the air.
I have to agree with Michael Magoon - this article did a great job of reviewing some of the many reasons I left academia. Other reasons: toxic department politics, soul-crushing committee meetings, racism, sexism, how the WEIRD bias in psychology makes most of our findings questionable.... Once I had tenure, I was free to breathe and think and realize, "I spend most of my time doing things I don't enjoy." Thanks for this, Rob.
"Reasons I left academia" Good name for a substack right there.
It's amazing to me that there's not some thriving movement of growing power from people who understand what a failed institution academia has become.
I wrote a few things on it here: https://www.themandarin.com.au/120036-academia-from-inefficient-effectiveness-to-efficient-ineffectiveness/
Thanks for the kind words, Valerie. Yeah, those are all good reasons. I have been wondering about how the ongoing political changes at places like Harvard, MIT, and, yes, Penn, have changed the experience of faculty members over the last five years. One note that I’ve started to hear a little more is that people once proud of being at such and such an institution, now are somewhat embarrassed by it, at least in some contexts. But, to your point, I wonder how the new stresses impinge on the day-to-day experience. Would be interesting to know. Again thanks for the comment!
This article makes me so glad that I left academia. It was bad in the 90s, and it is far worse now.
I never got a single article or book through the process, and after a few years realized that I did not really care about getting tenure anyway.
So I went into digital technology, made 3x times the money, and just kept reading and writing exactly what I wanted and when I wanted in my free time. I retired early, have published two books since then, and I write for Substack. Far better!
I honestly don’t know why anyone would go into academia now, except to avoid getting a “real job.” Very sad, because we need a productive academia, but I am not sure if we can get it.
I’ve been puzzling over the question of who belongs in academia. I keep returning to the grad students I encountered at UCSB in social psychology, focusing on stereotype threat, implicit racism, and the like. My sense is that they are quite happy in their jobs. If your goal is to do progressive activism clothed in the ornaments of scholarship—without the demands of rigor—academia might be a good place for you, at least in the humanities and social sciences.
Those activists should go off and form their own political party, and let true scholars and teachers continue their work. The ones you mention who want to pretend to be scholars corrupt the entire profession. Because of them, I don’t know if academia will exist in 20 years.
"They all learn the same basic foundational ideas, usually in microeconomics and macroeconomics classes as undergraduates".
Funny you should say that. I'm one of the few economists who thinks that the dominance of theory is a major problem for it. Here's a taste of what I mean.
https://www.themandarin.com.au/95353-nicholas-gruen-on-the-disciplinary-incentives-of-economics/
"If you wanted to ensure a psychologist had “the basics” of the field, what would you teach them? How a neuron works?"
More like how a *bunch of neurons* work. For an outstanding exposition, see Valentino Braitenberg's "Vehicles: Experiments in Synthetic Psychology".
Yes, I think that’s an excellent work. It gives a very good sense of how computational mechanisms can generate complex functional behaviors with relatively straightforward sensors and actuators. I agree that would be an excellent choice for an introductory class in psychology.
I think (maybe just hope) that it is slowly dawning on Western publics that the Academy that they have learned to revere as a magnet for the brightest and most independent-minded in society has in fact become a magnet for third-rate 'social justice' group-thinkers.
I hope so too. Certainly it seems as if there is a lot more interest in what is happening on Western campuses. I also think and hope that real change is in the air.