Yeah, I am sure enough about this not happening that I am willing to place bets. There is an enormous amount of intangibles Coursera can’t give you (I agree it can be useful for a certain type of person for certain types of aims).
Agree that being inside academia is probably a lot bigger deal than people outside it really appreciate. We’re about to see the first generation that grew up with a really ubiquitous internet come to grad school age though. Currently in addition to the assumption that generally clever people will want to go to university, we’ve treated it as obvious that the Nobel prize winning clever people will have an academic background. Which has been pretty much mandatory, since that used to be the only way you got to talk with other academicians and to access academic publications.
What I’m interested in now is whether in the next couple decades we’re going to see a Grigori Perelman or Shinichi Mochizuki style extreme outlier produce some result that ends up widely acknowledged to be an equally big deal as what Perelman did, without ever having seen the inside of an university. You can read pretty much any textbook or article you want over an internet connection now, and it’s probably not impossible to get professional mathematicians talking with you even when they have no idea who you are if it’s evident from the start that you have some idea what their research is about. And an extreme outlier might be clever enough to figure things on their own, obsessive enough to keep working on them on their own for years, and somewhat eccentric so that they take a dim view on academia and decline to play along out of principle.
It’d basically be a fluke statistically, but it would put a brand new spin on the narrative about academia. Academia wouldn’t be the obvious one source of higher learning anymore, it’d be the place where you go when you’re pretty smart but not quite good and original enough to go it alone.
In STEM fields, there is a great deal of necessary knowledge that simply is not in journals or articles, and is carried forward as institutional knowledge passed around among grad students and professors.
Maybe someday someone clever will figure out how to disseminate that knowledge, but it simply isn’t there yet.
Maybe someday someone clever will figure out how to disseminate that knowledge, but it simply isn’t there yet.
Based on Razib Khan’s blog posts, many cutting edge researchers seem to be pretty active on Twitter where they can talk about their own stuff and keep up on what their colleagues are up to. Grad students on social media will probably respond to someone asking about their subfield if it looks like they know their basics and may be up to something interesting.
The tiny bandwidth is of course a problem. “Professor Z has probably proven math lemma A” fits in a tweet, instruction on lab work rituals not so much.
Clever people who don’t want to pay for plane tickets and tuition might be pretty resourceful though, once they figure out they want to talk with each other to learn what they need to know.
The tiny bandwidth is of course a problem. “Professor Z has probably proven math lemma A” fits in a tweet, instruction on lab work rituals not so much.
That does fit a tweet but knowing that that doesn’t mean that a situation exists where that communication happens.
In many cases you don’t know what you don’t know, so you can’t ask.
For the questions where you can ask StackExchange is great.
Interesting point. Can you give an example of this knowledge?
I’m working on a PhD myself (in engineering), but the main things I feel I get from this are access to top scholars, mentoring, structure, and the chance to talk with others who are interested in learning more and research. One could also have access to difficult to obtain equipment in academia, but a large corporation could also provide such equipment. In principle I don’t think these things are unique to academia.
Sure, not 100% unique to academia, there are also industrial research environments.
My phd was in physics, and there were lots of examples. Weird tricks for aligning optics benches, semi-classical models that gave good order of magnitude estimates despite a lack of rigour, which estimates from the literature were trust worthy (and which estimates were garbage). Biophysics labs and material science lab all sorts of rituals around sample and culture growth and preparation. Many were voodoo, but there were good reasons for a lot of them as well.
Even tricks for using equipment- such and such piece of equipment might need really good impedance matching at one connection, but you could get by being sloppy on other connections because of reasons A, B and C,etc.
A friend of mine in math was stuck trying to prove a lemma for several months when famous professor Y suggested to him that famous professor Z had probably proven it but never bothered to publish.
Jason Mitchell writes in “On the emptiness of failed replications” that there certain knowledge you need to replicate experiments that’s not in the paper:
I have a particular cookbook that I love, and even though I follow the recipes as closely as I can, the food somehow never quite looks as good as it does in the photos. Does this mean that the recipes are deficient, perhaps even that the authors have misrepresented the quality of their food? Or could it be that there is more to great cooking than simply following a recipe? I do wish the authors would specify how many millimeters constitutes a “thinly” sliced onion, or the maximum torque allowed when “fluffing” rice, or even just the acceptable range in degrees Fahrenheit for “medium” heat. They don’t, because they assume that I share tacit knowledge of certain culinary conventions and techniques;
[...]
Likewise, there is more to being a successful experimenter than merely following what’s printed in a method section. Experimenters develop a sense, honed over many years, of how to use a method successfully. Much of this knowledge is implicit. Collecting meaningful neuroimaging data, for example, requires that participants remain near-motionless during scanning, and thus in my lab, we go through great lengths to encourage participants to keep still. We whine about how we will have spent a lot of money for nothing if they move, we plead with them not to sneeze or cough or wiggle their foot while in the scanner, and we deliver frequent pep talks and reminders throughout the session.
How best to give those pep talks would be an example.
Yes I think even in math a lot of what is called “mathematical sophistication” is implicit knowledge that’s hard to communicate without being steeped in the social context in which math is developed and read.
It’s hard to explain, it’s the way you think and talk about math, it’s not about visible signs like notation.
I like the Scott Bakker analogy for magic, there is the visible part of math (formulas, etc.), and the corresponding mental habits. The visible part without the correct way of thinking behind the scenes doesn’t work.
I guess one example is an ontology of “the type of math that’s being done” in one’s head, that lets people quickly figure out what the paper is trying to do after reading relatively little of it.
We’re about to see the first generation that grew up with a really ubiquitous internet come to grad school age though
I only know about STEM, but I don’t think it will make a ton of difference (will report back once I see a few graduate).
What I’m interested in now is whether in the next couple decades we’re going to see a Grigori Perelman or
Shinichi Mochizuki style extreme outlier produce some result that ends up widely acknowledged to be an equally
big deal as what Perelman did, without ever having seen the inside of an university.
I am quite certain this is very unlikely to become any type of trend (it is certainly possible for outsiders to be great, Ramanujan was an outsider after all).
edit: I think a better example of “credentialism” is docs vs nurses. MDs know a lot more than nurses do, but there is a ton of routine healthcare stuff that needs a doc for no good reason, basically. In academia people ultimately just care if you are good or not. One of the smartest mathematical minds I know is an MD, not a PhD (and is an enormously influential academic doing mathy stuff). There is a famous mathematician at UCLA without a PhD, I think.
Quants are often STEM PhDs, actually. There is a very famous Pearl student who is a quant now (Thomas Verma). Thomas is famous enough to have a constraint named after him.
It is true that what is considered worthwhile academic work is somehow socially constructed in the end, even in STEM. But in STEM there is a rigorous footing for these things that helps a lot with not running off to lala land (e.g. the process by which these things are socially constructed does not result in nonsense or arbitrary things being rewarded just because credentialed people did them). If a quant outsider constructs a very influential model, I could see that ending up in a Nobel, especially if it goes through a conventional publication process. I think though quants are generally kept very busy with non-academic things. You need space and time to do good work, and people outside academia or places like Google labs just don’t have either.
I think there are quants who make a lot of money and then find that money isn’t everything and who wants to do more public work afterwards. Nassim Taleb sort of fits into that model, even through of cause he doesn’t count since he has an academic degree.
You need space and time to do good work, and people outside academia or places like Google labs just don’t have either.
Einstein was in neither academia nor Google labs in 1905. He simply had a day job that left him and his wife enough time.
In the area of medicine I consider it possible that someone without an academic background has a startup idea that turns out to change medicine.
Given that I studied bioinformatics there a bit of a change that I overestimate people who never went to university to look at certain paths of thoughts but I did spent years thinking about certain ideas outside of a formal academic setting.
But in STEM there is a rigorous footing for these things that helps a lot with not running off to lala land
I’m not sure whether the academic physics community community really succeeds at this task these days. The Gender Science community even less.
I think there are multiple different ways of getting feedback that keeps you from going of into lala land that are different from academia. In the field of health QS partly has the property. It’s not perfect but neither is academia.
If a quant outsider constructs a very influential model, I could see that ending up in a Nobel, especially if it goes through a conventional publication process. I think though quants are generally kept very busy with non-academic things.
For finance in particular, my impression is that quants that make good discoveries keep them to themselves, because that’s how they make money! After a while, some academic notices the same thing, formalizes it, and then publishes, and then the opportunity is gone.
I am quite certain this is very unlikely to become any type of trend (it is certainly possible for outsiders to be great, Ramanujan was an outsider after all).
Not in the present circumstances, no. The interesting thing is if it would strike a match with the current disaffection with academia (perceptions of must-have-bachelor’s-for-any-kind-of-job student loan rackets and stressed-out researchers who spend most of their energy gaming administrative systems and grinding out cookie-cutter research tailored to fit standardized bureaucratic metrics for acceptable tenure-track career path progress), cause more young people who think they are talented and exceptional to drop out, and what they will do once they have and if that trend might continue far enough to change the wider circumstances around academia.
Agree that being inside academia is probably a lot bigger deal than people outside it really appreciate. We’re about to see the first generation that grew up with a really ubiquitous internet come to grad school age though. Currently in addition to the assumption that generally clever people will want to go to university, we’ve treated it as obvious that the Nobel prize winning clever people will have an academic background. Which has been pretty much mandatory, since that used to be the only way you got to talk with other academicians and to access academic publications.
What I’m interested in now is whether in the next couple decades we’re going to see a Grigori Perelman or Shinichi Mochizuki style extreme outlier produce some result that ends up widely acknowledged to be an equally big deal as what Perelman did, without ever having seen the inside of an university. You can read pretty much any textbook or article you want over an internet connection now, and it’s probably not impossible to get professional mathematicians talking with you even when they have no idea who you are if it’s evident from the start that you have some idea what their research is about. And an extreme outlier might be clever enough to figure things on their own, obsessive enough to keep working on them on their own for years, and somewhat eccentric so that they take a dim view on academia and decline to play along out of principle.
It’d basically be a fluke statistically, but it would put a brand new spin on the narrative about academia. Academia wouldn’t be the obvious one source of higher learning anymore, it’d be the place where you go when you’re pretty smart but not quite good and original enough to go it alone.
In STEM fields, there is a great deal of necessary knowledge that simply is not in journals or articles, and is carried forward as institutional knowledge passed around among grad students and professors.
Maybe someday someone clever will figure out how to disseminate that knowledge, but it simply isn’t there yet.
Based on Razib Khan’s blog posts, many cutting edge researchers seem to be pretty active on Twitter where they can talk about their own stuff and keep up on what their colleagues are up to. Grad students on social media will probably respond to someone asking about their subfield if it looks like they know their basics and may be up to something interesting.
The tiny bandwidth is of course a problem. “Professor Z has probably proven math lemma A” fits in a tweet, instruction on lab work rituals not so much.
Clever people who don’t want to pay for plane tickets and tuition might be pretty resourceful though, once they figure out they want to talk with each other to learn what they need to know.
That does fit a tweet but knowing that that doesn’t mean that a situation exists where that communication happens. In many cases you don’t know what you don’t know, so you can’t ask.
For the questions where you can ask StackExchange is great.
Interesting point. Can you give an example of this knowledge?
I’m working on a PhD myself (in engineering), but the main things I feel I get from this are access to top scholars, mentoring, structure, and the chance to talk with others who are interested in learning more and research. One could also have access to difficult to obtain equipment in academia, but a large corporation could also provide such equipment. In principle I don’t think these things are unique to academia.
Sure, not 100% unique to academia, there are also industrial research environments.
My phd was in physics, and there were lots of examples. Weird tricks for aligning optics benches, semi-classical models that gave good order of magnitude estimates despite a lack of rigour, which estimates from the literature were trust worthy (and which estimates were garbage). Biophysics labs and material science lab all sorts of rituals around sample and culture growth and preparation. Many were voodoo, but there were good reasons for a lot of them as well.
Even tricks for using equipment- such and such piece of equipment might need really good impedance matching at one connection, but you could get by being sloppy on other connections because of reasons A, B and C,etc.
A friend of mine in math was stuck trying to prove a lemma for several months when famous professor Y suggested to him that famous professor Z had probably proven it but never bothered to publish.
Jason Mitchell writes in “On the emptiness of failed replications” that there certain knowledge you need to replicate experiments that’s not in the paper:
How best to give those pep talks would be an example.
Yes I think even in math a lot of what is called “mathematical sophistication” is implicit knowledge that’s hard to communicate without being steeped in the social context in which math is developed and read.
As an example, do you mean something like correctly understanding how to “abuse” mathematical notation in a way that remains rigorous?
It’s hard to explain, it’s the way you think and talk about math, it’s not about visible signs like notation.
I like the Scott Bakker analogy for magic, there is the visible part of math (formulas, etc.), and the corresponding mental habits. The visible part without the correct way of thinking behind the scenes doesn’t work.
I guess one example is an ontology of “the type of math that’s being done” in one’s head, that lets people quickly figure out what the paper is trying to do after reading relatively little of it.
The guy is profoundly misguided about the purpose of food X-D
And food photography is a specialized and lucrative field for a reason.
I only know about STEM, but I don’t think it will make a ton of difference (will report back once I see a few graduate).
I am quite certain this is very unlikely to become any type of trend (it is certainly possible for outsiders to be great, Ramanujan was an outsider after all).
edit: I think a better example of “credentialism” is docs vs nurses. MDs know a lot more than nurses do, but there is a ton of routine healthcare stuff that needs a doc for no good reason, basically. In academia people ultimately just care if you are good or not. One of the smartest mathematical minds I know is an MD, not a PhD (and is an enormously influential academic doing mathy stuff). There is a famous mathematician at UCLA without a PhD, I think.
If we include the economics “nobel”, do you find it unlikely that some quant in a bank who was never inside an university wins it?
Ain’t no such thing. Banks are highly regulated conservative institutions and want credentials at least as much as any other employer.
In some exotic hedge fund, maybe, but I still don’t know about a Nobel...
Quants are often STEM PhDs, actually. There is a very famous Pearl student who is a quant now (Thomas Verma). Thomas is famous enough to have a constraint named after him.
It is true that what is considered worthwhile academic work is somehow socially constructed in the end, even in STEM. But in STEM there is a rigorous footing for these things that helps a lot with not running off to lala land (e.g. the process by which these things are socially constructed does not result in nonsense or arbitrary things being rewarded just because credentialed people did them). If a quant outsider constructs a very influential model, I could see that ending up in a Nobel, especially if it goes through a conventional publication process. I think though quants are generally kept very busy with non-academic things. You need space and time to do good work, and people outside academia or places like Google labs just don’t have either.
I think there are quants who make a lot of money and then find that money isn’t everything and who wants to do more public work afterwards. Nassim Taleb sort of fits into that model, even through of cause he doesn’t count since he has an academic degree.
Einstein was in neither academia nor Google labs in 1905. He simply had a day job that left him and his wife enough time.
In the area of medicine I consider it possible that someone without an academic background has a startup idea that turns out to change medicine. Given that I studied bioinformatics there a bit of a change that I overestimate people who never went to university to look at certain paths of thoughts but I did spent years thinking about certain ideas outside of a formal academic setting.
I’m not sure whether the academic physics community community really succeeds at this task these days. The Gender Science community even less.
I think there are multiple different ways of getting feedback that keeps you from going of into lala land that are different from academia. In the field of health QS partly has the property. It’s not perfect but neither is academia.
For finance in particular, my impression is that quants that make good discoveries keep them to themselves, because that’s how they make money! After a while, some academic notices the same thing, formalizes it, and then publishes, and then the opportunity is gone.
There is a saying: In finance, if you get results you trade and if you don’t, you publish :-/
There are exceptions, of course—Asness comes to mind.
Not in the present circumstances, no. The interesting thing is if it would strike a match with the current disaffection with academia (perceptions of must-have-bachelor’s-for-any-kind-of-job student loan rackets and stressed-out researchers who spend most of their energy gaming administrative systems and grinding out cookie-cutter research tailored to fit standardized bureaucratic metrics for acceptable tenure-track career path progress), cause more young people who think they are talented and exceptional to drop out, and what they will do once they have and if that trend might continue far enough to change the wider circumstances around academia.
The “traditional” answer :-/ is that they will do startups.