cyrksoft

I never said all education should produce something of monetary value. There are many non-monetary value things that can nonetheless be measured.

You keep talking about how things have been historically. Things can change, and historically not everything was done correctly.

> Either you want a society which knows its own history of you don’t.

You don't need hundreds or thousand of History PhDs for that.

There is no point on people studying things nobody cares and nobody will ever care about. If your work never gets used, why force a subsidy on it? Do it with your own means if you like. Or accept the fact that you will have to do it for a very low wage no matter how many PhDs you have.

You seem unable to defend your position other that 'historically it's been this way' and 'unmeasurable value'. There is no point in keeping going with this discussion.

I've given you my arguments, but you don't like them. And all your arguments are 'things have been done this way for centuries, let's keep the status quo as it is' and 'you cannot measure what I do'. Governments don't subsidise sectors, tax payers do. And you are saying we should keep giving money to those producing nothing, or something so valuable that can't be measured, because that is how we've been doing things so far. You should tell me why we should keep giving people money, not the other way around. Specially in the current situation where lots of people are really struggling.

> Number of papers published or number of citations isn't a measure of the value of someone's research. This over-reliance on metrics is a big part of what's going wrong with academia. A hundred years ago people published when they had something to say, and authors of journals had to literally beg people for submissions.

It is the universal measure of how useful your research is. How do you measure it otherwise? Research is useful if somebody else uses it. Most research in humanities has no use. I'm not against humanities per se, the same could be said about biology, for example. I'm against forcing people to pay very high wages for doing nothing of value. Because, let's face it, academics actually make very decent wages for the zero-risk job they have.

> So is education. All developed countries spend public money on education.

I don't see university-level education as a fundamental aspect of government spending, at least not in its current form. Also, the fact that everybody does it means nothing.

> In the UK? In the UK a minimum wage worker pays hardly any tax, so they don't subsidise much of anything. If the question is why society should subsidise that, my answer would be that it should do so if it values historical knowledge (assuming that we're still talking about history PhDs). If you are just saying "history sucks, so let's not spend money training people to be historians", then sure, that is a coherent position.

'Hardly any tax' is quite a bold statement. You are clearly not on minimum wage. Try living in London on £1,300 a month. Even if they 'only' pay 20%, there is also a 20% VAT on everything they spend.

My questions are not rhetorical, so you could answer them. Money has to come from somewhere. If your answer is subsidies, then decide either to increase taxation or to cut funding to something else. I believe it is wrong to force people to subsidies academics producing nothing. You cannot tell me that a History PhD studying the life of a 15th century Pope provides much value to society.

That things worked in a certain way for centuries means nothing. Humanities academics are easy to hire, they are many, many PhD graduates, and very few open positions. Also, they make more money in academia than they make in industry. With not money outside options, it is easy to fill those roles.

I'm not suggesting cutting all funding, I think they do provide value in society. However, they shouldn't be demanding salaries that they cannot produce themselves. The fact that Business School professors (as an example, the same could be said by CS professors) make a lot more, doesn't mean that Humanities professor should make the same.

Also, having governments fund most of their budget has many risks. It is very hard for it not to become political and a tool for those in power.

> The success of this basic research feeds back into society with substantially increased tax revenue and reputation to attract the best minds in the world.

I would love to see a source on that, particularly the tax revenue increase and return on investment.

I think it is wrong to fund so many researchers that contribute almost nothing to society with tax payers money. Why force minimum wage workers to give part of their income for academics to sit around and think about something that will probably have zero to no impact, while risking nothing. Let's face it, most academics accomplish nothing and have no impact whatsoever with their research. And I am saying this as an Econ researcher. I believe I contributed nothing to research in Economics while working in academia for 30 years. If I had any contribution whatsoever, it was either by teaching or by my consulting jobs.

You are using one Oxford college as an example, that is not representative at all. Most universities have very little (if not null) prestige associated to them. If you will only recruit top talent at Oxford and Cambridge, why have the rest of the universities? How do you plan on funding them?

That might be the case. But universities are not startups.

In one of the universities I worked at they had a four-year long History undergraduate degree. Between 5 and 10 students chose it each year (the entire university has around 5,000 students, give or take). That means that there are around 30 students combined. For these 30 students, there were more than 40 full time academics! There are more professors than students. All this is possible because they had 2,000 undergraduate business students, and 1,000 business postgraduate students paying 3x or 4x what a History student paid in tuition fees. I know this might be an extreme case, but it is not that rare. You cannot run a sustainable business like that. Of course History professors made a lot less than their business counterparts, and they complained a lot.

I'm surprised how very few departments within most universities actually make money. If you had a company where most products lost money you would stop producing them. Universities have a lot of departments and degrees that bleed money. I don't understand how anybody thinks that you can have good wages like this.

I worked as an Econ professor and visiting academic in top Business Schools in Latin America and the East Coast (USA), and I can tell you that Business Schools make A LOT of money. They charge whatever they want and people (in most cases, their employers) pay them. In many cases Business Schools can amount up to 40/50% of the universities' revenue. That is also why business professors are paid a lot more. I personally know people at London Business School making more than £ 200,000 a year. Salaries at INSEAD are very similar as well. Of course, salaries at top US Business Schools are even higher.

My point is that you cannot run a business where one or two products make money and the remaining 90% bleed it. That is, if you want to run it as a business and attract talent and pay nice wages. If you want to run universities as some type of public good, then good luck. Pay everybody the same and offer as many degrees as you'd like. Good luck hiring competent people...

Thanks! I've read that site before, but it is not recommended for absolute beginners. I know a bit of programming, but I never had a formal education in Computer Science (I'm an Econ PhD). Is there a more beginner-friendly version of this website?

> I put "rapidly" in quotes up there because if I have one piece of advice to PhD students, it's to get the hell out of grad school as soon as you can. Like the parent, I had fun exploring my interests, and it was a period of intellectual freedom that most people never get. I relish that time, but I also regret the costs. I was idealistic and unwilling to compromise my personal goals, which ended up delaying everything. If I could go back and do it over, I'd be more mercenary about finding an already successful collaborative project, contributing a little bit, and getting out. Grad school is a job -- a particularly abusive, low-reward job -- and the only goal is to finish. You get no trophies for knowing more stuff at the end, and spending time gratifying your curiosity or being a perfectionist might seem appealing ("why would I be putting myself through this if I weren't going to indulge my intellect?"), but it's ultimately a trap.

I feel the same in many ways. I went into the PhD without a specific project and it was extremely complex. I was fortunate enough work in a theory heavy field, but had friends with more data-related interests. They had a really hard time finding data. Unless you are in top places in the US, data is almost impossible to get.

I highly recommend project PhDs (if you want to choose the PhD route), which are the norm in Europe/UK. You can choose very good universities in cheap cities and have some great 3/4 years. Travelling in Europe is quite cheap, food is cheap enough.

I have a PhD from a top Econ department in the US (I finished it a couple of decades ago, so things might have changed).

Of course a PhD is not the best decision if you are only looking at optimising your path to industry. However, during my PhD I had a fantastic time. I studied what I wanted to, I had a lot of free time to develop any skill I wanted to.

It was also very useful to jump start my career. Instead of having to work for X years until o reach a certain position, I was able to go straight into a high paying job.

I came from a poor and rural part of South America. For me, the PhD was the best and easiest path to getting a top paying job in the US. I'm not saying this is for everyone, but it can be a very nice choice for a career in industry. I even met PhDs from low ranked universities during my career.