This is some self-righteous BS. You know what else research is (for most academics)? It’s a job. It happens to be a job that I really like doing, but it’s still a job. So let’s not pretend that it’s not a means to an end—living in a better city, having higher income, providing a higher quality of life to your family etc.
lol at being dense enough to choose academia as a means of "iving in a better city, having higher income, providing a higher quality of life to your family etc."
This dude is going to need to tone it down if he is taking a job in the corporate sector - and in MARKETING. Corporate marketing is all about not airing your dirty laundry and presenting a good public face (regardless of the reality) about the corporate brand and its products.
Sour grapes does not sell product.
I'm sure he will be taking notes from the comments here
This is some self-righteous BS. You know what else research is (for most academics)? It’s a job. It happens to be a job that I really like doing, but it’s still a job. So let’s not pretend that it’s not a means to an end—living in a better city, having higher income, providing a higher quality of life to your family etc.
The main problem as alluded upthread is that Utych (and to some extent Burmilla and others) think of research as a contest to measure their intellectual worth. It's not. It's designed to learn things about the world.
Do academics really have no clue what a real salary looks like?
Silence. Adults are talking here. Go study for your comps
This is some self-righteous BS. You know what else research is (for most academics)? It’s a job. It happens to be a job that I really like doing, but it’s still a job. So let’s not pretend that it’s not a means to an end—living in a better city, having higher income, providing a higher quality of life to your family etc.
lol at being dense enough to choose academia as a means of "iving in a better city, having higher income, providing a higher quality of life to your family etc."
This is some self-righteous BS. You know what else research is (for most academics)? It’s a job. It happens to be a job that I really like doing, but it’s still a job. So let’s not pretend that it’s not a means to an end—living in a better city, having higher income, providing a higher quality of life to your family etc.
If academic political science research is not about producing knowledge, if it is just a jobs program, then it does not matter for societal benefit if opportunities are distributed unfairly. If there is no social gain from political science research, there is no social cost when inequality distorts it. The "losers" in academic status competition (or ppl who see themselves as losers) can gripe that they were treated unfairly, but it is not a social problem.
If it is about producing knowledge, then one cannot reasonably complain about inequalities that *improve* knowledge production, as this one undoubtedly did.
You pick.
It's a weird hill to die on to think "media effects exist" being published in 2022 is increasing knowledge
OK! You have chosen option 1, there is no social value to the research. So according to your view, what is Utych complaining about? That someone else got socially useless opportunity instead of him. Who cares?
Gosh you are an 1d1ot
If academic political science research is not about producing knowledge, if it is just a jobs program, then it does not matter for societal benefit if opportunities are distributed unfairly. If there is no social gain from political science research, there is no social cost when inequality distorts it. The "losers" in academic status competition (or ppl who see themselves as losers) can gripe that they were treated unfairly, but it is not a social problem.
If it is about producing knowledge, then one cannot reasonably complain about inequalities that *improve* knowledge production, as this one undoubtedly did.
You pick.
Something can be a job and can produe social gain at the same time, Einstein. People at NASA, microsoft, or Tesla are not doing what they are doing as a hobby.
If academic political science research is not about producing knowledge, if it is just a jobs program, then it does not matter for societal benefit if opportunities are distributed unfairly. If there is no social gain from political science research, there is no social cost when inequality distorts it. The "losers" in academic status competition (or ppl who see themselves as losers) can gripe that they were treated unfairly, but it is not a social problem.
If it is about producing knowledge, then one cannot reasonably complain about inequalities that *improve* knowledge production, as this one undoubtedly did.
You pick.
Utych's first tweet did not say "D/B shouldn't have the money to do this kind of research". It was just saying that, given massive inequalities, we should not pretend publishing and academia are meritocratic.
But that's such a d*mb point. Nobody ever said publishing and academia were meritocratic.
Utych's first tweet did not say "D/B shouldn't have the money to do this kind of research". It was just saying that, given massive inequalities, we should not pretend publishing and academia are meritocratic.
But that's such a d*mb point. Nobody ever said publishing and academia were meritocratic.
Plenty of people in this very thread have said just that
k/b applied for and won an nsf grant. that's as close to meritocracy as academia gets. it's CERTAINLY more meritocratic than converting the twitter clout you've gotten by mouthing off into people reading your otherwise unimportant work.
His general point of "perhaps journals should publish inexpensive experiments, too" seems pretty reasonable. People here are reading really strange things into this tweet. He seems like he is unhappy with the state of academia, but the idea that his is angry at B+K is weird.
It's obvious you don't like the guy, given the amount of personal attacks on him and his work in this thread, but it's really irrelevant to the point he was trying to make.
His general point of "perhaps journals should publish inexpensive experiments, too" seems pretty reasonable.
serious question: when did he make this point?That's what I took from the original tweet, which was fairly benign
that's plainly not in any of his tweets. if he'd just tweeted that, i bet he'd have gotten a lot more support.