Academia has two functions: education and research. Quality is difficult to measure, in principle, because it isn’t a tangible good. Usually, we need process-indicators in order to make the measure. So, for instance, we look at education quality by looking at ratio of researcher to class size. The assumption here is that if there is no link between research and education, then the classroom becomes a new form of high school: people aren’t learning to be masters in their trade, they’re learning to be pompous cogs. And these figures are going progressively down, as contract faculty pick up the slack: people who have adjunct positions, who are underpaid, overworked, and unable to research. (This trend is far worse in America than it is in Canada, but in the North tend to follow America’s lead.) Some policy advisors recently recommended that the Ontario government create an undergraduate only university, specializing in nothing but education, not research.

In some cases it takes an entire research project to demonstrate what a quality decline in the research area might look like. After all, how do you demonstrate missed opportunities for innovation?

For one thing, one has to look at the utility of academic institutions in the eye of the general public for, say, policy advice. Listening to semi-serious stations like CBC radio, you will often hear foreign policy advice from people who work at “institutes”, and nobody in the audience will blink an eye — in fact, it’s so pervasive that not even academics will blink an eye. The problem is that many of these institutes are not peer reviewed systems, they’re unaffiliated hobbyhorses for charlatans pushing a policy agenda. But nobody minds. It’s not fraud if it’s in plain sight. But it is fostering a quality decline by putting irresponsible institutions in competition with responsible ones. (This is not even to speak of the non-serious stations, like Fox News or whatever.)

For another thing, assuming that fraud actually gets reported in all cases, one might look at whether or not cases of institutional fraud are going up. Ghostwriting is one form of such fraud, but it is actually commonplace in biomedical science; my mother works as a database coordinator for a hospital, and she is the unique provider of primary research that eventually gets published. Her name is never on the end product, yet often you’ll find mysterious names attached to the byline, people who weren’t even her supervisor — people, in other words, who are too lazy to do their own work but really want the credit.

The inverse problem is “surprise scholarship”, where somebody finds their name appended to a document that presents conclusions that are the opposite of their own research. Chris Radziminski at University of Toronto is case in point. Chris was defrauded as a graduate student by his superiors, and the fraud was upheld when he complained of the bungling of his conclusions into misleading form. He literally *had* to complain to the refereed journal of publication before the manufactured documents were revealed to be what they were. Both are cases where the lower stratum takes it on the chin so that the higher stratum can plagiarize their way to success, and (more importantly) are instances where this conduct is systematic. When there’s a divide between merit and credit, there is a disincentive for taking responsibility for one’s own research (especially in cases of field research, which are not always repeatable).

Most important of all — nobody blinks an eye at these things. Maybe it causes dinner party indigestion, and occasionally the CFS holds a conference that nobody attends. I don’t know if things have always been this way, but it’s all at least consistent with the worries about pathological conformity above.

Anyway, these are only the first, barest glimpses at what a quality decline might look like. I could mention other things but they might require an essay to establish as process-indicators.

Is there really a quality decline? From my vantage point, I don’t see it.

On the separate issue of what is the best way to fund a better system, I am at somewhat of a loss. It is difficult to efficiently fund innovation, since it is difficult to predict where innovation will come from. This is probably partly why most of the funding for innovation comes from the federal government, since most businesses must not l like the risk/return odds over the time horizon that they are most interested. The federal government also has the problem of not having unlimited resources, so they have to make guesses about where to invest in innovation, and they are bound to be wrong much of time. This is where they get nailed in the press for why the government is “wasting” millions of dollars on obscure topics that don’t obviously provide solutions in the next few years. The government seems to be quite conservative right now in what type of risks its willing to take on innovation. Given this environment we have to work harder at selling the idea for why our pet innovation is worth betting on. We live in a competitive environment (I just got rejected on a grant where the funding line was set at ~the top 1%). Hopefully, the funding will loosen up somewhat, but the environment is still going to be very competitive, so new researchers need to get creative in finding pools of money. Often times you can get money for the mundane, but use a portion of that money to fund the innovative. Einstein is a good example of a guy who worked outside of the academy (in the not so exciting world of the patent office) to make his biggest innovations, and only after these innovations were accepted did he become faculty. Come to think of it, I a lot of great innovations have taken place outside of the ivory towers. Creative and driven people have a tendency to thrive even in less than ideal systems.

Don’t get too discouraged. While you are waiting for the system to improve, try to figure out ways to work around the system.

A system that artificially selects in favor of conformity of the primary drive toward studies that conform to the cash available for grants, and talents that are satisfied and assessed according to their fit with pre-existing research projects, is a system that by its nature stifles intellectual activity. Such systems are little more than incubators for pathological conformity. If so, then it makes a significant difference to the prospects of the project of the modern intellectual. For intellectual activity occurs through argument and civil conflict, and we find that it is cut out at the start.

At which point, the only outlets for intellectual activity are outside of the academy. But this is a very dysfunctional way for things to go, especially since trustworthiness and credibility lie in the hands of the scholarly institutions, not with dillettentes with exotic opinions. Unless, of course, folks find their support by paying fealty to sketchy institutes (who are, bizarrely, finding themselves with more and more public trust) — but these institutes seemingly think themselves above peer review. Yet another worry for intellectualism in the 21st century.

I would keep expectation about getting credit rather low. Throughout history most people have not been credited with making great contributions and the few that do get credit, probably get more credit than they deserve. It’s not fair. If getting credit is your standard for being successful, then you are likely to be very disappointed.

Becoming a PhD is a high risk endeavor, and I think that many students have been given a disproportionate view of the pros compared to the cons. Maybe if the risks were better known people could make better decisions for themselves. This all being said, when I did have a tenured-faculty member ask me to my face if this PhD thing was really the best idea for me, I got pissed off. How dare she ask ME such a question? It wasn’t the best time to ask me the question, since I was trying to get her advice on how best to prepare for my upcoming preliminary oral examination, but it was a fair question and should be asked more often and earlier in the process. It didn’t help me to get overly defensive, but I did. I also got defensive when I was rejected for the first faculty position I applied for. In my experience it has helped to be willing to pursue almost any kind of an opportunity, and then once in the door try to elbow my way into better opportunities.

Don’t completely discount people that warn against thinking too large. They might be saying this because they have seen people too often come in with big ideas that couldn’t get the job done. There is a benefit to breaking off bite size pieces to prove a concept. Plus, many big ideas fall apart in the process of working through the details. If some of these details can be worked out through less formal channels such as web communications, may be that is a good and efficient thing.

Say in philosophy. You have no idea how many times I’ve heard my professors say, “I haven’t thought of it that way” or “It’s hard to follow you because you have all this worked out already”. Some have said, “stop thinking so large, you can only publish on small ideas”. Some profs are shocked (SHOCKED!!) when I announce whatever intuitions I happen to have that day which are slightly abnormal or unexpected (reliabilism compatible with internalism? say it ain’t so!). And I’m not a genius. So it’s enough to make me suspect that in some vital sense the system is an incubator for intellectual sterility. Innovations in this environment will then be provided by the social system instead of being washed through reasons and personal experience; so we’ll be parasitic upon the talents of generations past, and the drives of those who provide the funding.

Still, in the old days, this diversity could only be corrected generations later, either by picking up an obscure treatise that had been missed or by reinventing the wheel yourself. Nowadays, we don’t have to wait for generations, because he have blogs and the internet. The Dr. Wunderbars of the world can pick up on a free-floating idea in cyberspace and run with it, while the rest of us can give it away for free via blog.

The most maddening thing is that the prospect of helping to innovate in that deeply uncredited channel makes me feel lucky to even be that connected. How screwed up is that?

“S&E bachelor’s degree recipients are more likely to enroll in and complete graduate training than bachelor’s degree recipients in most other fields. Fifty-seven percent of 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients in natural sciences and mathematics and 50% of those with bachelor’s degrees in social and behavioral sciences enrolled in graduate school by 2003, compared with 25%–43% of graduates in most other fields (including 39% of engineering graduates). Education graduates also had a high percentage enrolling in graduate school (50%). Forty percent of natural sciences and mathematics bachelor’s degree recipients completed an advanced degree program within 10 years, compared with 17%–31% of graduates in other fields, and 9% had completed a doctoral degree compared with up to 3% of graduates in other fields (table 2-7table.). Not all of those who completed an advanced degree completed it in an S&E field. The majority of S&E bachelor’s degree recipients who earn additional degrees earn them in non-S&E fields (e.g., business, law, or medicine). About one-fourth earn additional degrees in the same S&E field, and the remainder earn them in other S&E fields (NSF/SRS 2006b).”

“Graduate completion rates are roughly comparable to undergraduate completion rates. Among students enrolled in doctoral programs in the early 1990s, about 60% completed doctorates within 10 years. Completion rates vary by discipline, with 64% of engineering students, 62% of life sciences students, and 55% of physical and social sciences students completing doctorates within 10 years (CGS 2005). Timing of graduate attrition varies by discipline. Early attrition from doctoral programs is more common in engineering, physical sciences, and mathematics, and later attrition is more common in humanities and social sciences.”

Now, by comparison to other fields, the statistics are not bad. But if we put so much stock and value in the doctoral training for these fields, I would think we could do better in these percentages. Paying a crappy stipend to people who could earn more in a regular job is a lousy incentive. TomJoe, you might not be making as much per year as you do now had you gone into the professions after undergrad, but you’d have made more in the intervening timeframe.

I didn’t say my story was average. However I do not feel that the problem, as mentioned in the article, is as acute as some people would believe. This country will continue to be the leader in the scientific front, academia be damned. In addition, this seemingly notion of “if you’re not in academia you’re not making scientific impact” is way off-base. There is nothing wrong with pursuing a private sector or governmental sector job with all of its the promise of greater job security and greater pay, all the while remaining in science (and having considerable impact). That’s exactly what I did, and I don’t regret it for a second. And while the economy is currently a mess, and job positions are rarer, there are still plenty of scientific jobs to be found outside of academia. On top of that, many of these jobs are targeted towards PhD’s.

As far as finding and retaining students in PhD fields, I haven’t heard of any shortage of graduate students from my friends who remain in academia. If anything, the pool of graduate students has risen. Talking with a student I previously mentored, he said that one graduate school he applied to had over 200 applications, and they only offer to ~10% of those applicants. I can’t really consider that a shortage, can you?