3 Myths about academia

There’s been a lot of discussion in the New York Times this week about the problems with academia. It started with Mark Taylor’s op-ed, “End the University as We Know It”, and a few days later, John Tierney of TierneyLab wondered “What if Scientists Didn’t Compete?”

Having spent years in academia, and fresh from a recent transition to the business world, I found myself thinking that there are a lot of misconceptions about how things work in the Ivory Tower. Despite its eccentricities, academia has more in common with the outside world than you might think. This is good news for academics transitioning out to industry and business, but it’s also great for potential employers.

Myth #1: Academics don’t collaborate: it’s all about the lone genius

Both Tierney and Taylor proposed increased collaboration in academic research, giving the impression that there is little collaboration currently. The truth is, networking and collaboration are essential throughout an academic career, just as they are in the business world. This is especially true in interdisciplinary fields such as biomedical engineering. There are many inter-institutional and inter-departmental efforts set up around exactly the kind of initiatives Taylor has proposed.  Programs like these have already been active for years. If the traditional departmental structure that Taylor opposes is not able to accommodate changing times, new departments are created, forging new connections between researchers. To further underscore the importance of collaboration, it is not unheard of for grant reviewers to evaluate the extent to which an investigator is making use of potential collaborators, as one of the criteria for deciding whether to award a grant.

Of course there is intense competition in academia as well. This is a good thing, because competition plays an essential role in driving progress, just as it does in business and in life.

Myth #2: Academics don’t understand what it’s like to have a “real” job

Academic jobs are different from other types of jobs, but being in grad school in science or engineering is more like having a job than it is like being in high school or college.  As a science/engineering doctoral student, you are essentially a (low) paid researcher. Doctoral students in science and engineering typically pay zero tuition, instead receiving a research stipend.

Just as in the “real” world, as a science/engineering grad student you need to find an employer — a principal investigator (your boss) with funds and work to be done. No one is obligated to take you on. It is true that in grad school you will likely have more autonomy than you would in an industry role, but this is not a bad thing. You still need to learn to work with your boss, team members, and collaborators (see Myth #1). You still need to show results and meet conference deadlines. Your work needs to meet a certain standard to be published. Learning to negotiate is important when it comes to deciding who gets first author credit, and negotiating with your thesis committee is essential to graduation.

And being a tenure-track professor in science or engineering is similar to starting a small business. You’ve got to hire and manage a team, you have to form a research plan and manage a budget, you have to raise money and keep raising money, you have responsibilities to your funding agencies as well as to your employees, and you have to constantly market yourself to increase visibility. In addition, navigating the political minefield that is typical of academic institutions takes skill.  Connections matter, and having friends in high places does not hurt.

Yes, there are significant differences between academic jobs and those in the outside world, one of the biggest differences being the tenure system. But for grad students, postdocs, and professors early in their careers, the skills they learn by working in a university can be very transferrable if they decide to leave academia.

Myth #3: Academics can’t communicate: the monotone drone scribbling at the chalkboard, back to the audience

Academics prize a killer presentation, because reputation is what makes or breaks them. In engineering and biology, long gone are the days of hand-drawn overhead transparencies, and if you aren’t good at PowerPoint layout, you learn quickly. In engineering, a grad student prepping for a conference talk goes through at least two rounds of dry runs where they are pre-emptively torn to shreds to toughen them up for the real audience. Sure, there are lousy writers and speakers in academia, just like in the outside world. But if you watch TED.com, you’ll see tons of academics giving some of the best talks. These are not anomalies. These people know how to talk and understand the power of visuals. They understand that choosing the right word matters: problems are never problems, they’re challenges.

Finally, the root of poor communication is often poor conceptual understanding.  If you don’t understand what you’re trying to say, you probably won’t do a great job of communicating it. Top-notch academics get that at a deep level.

Related posts:

1. Behind the scenes in business and academia
2. How commercializable is microfluidics research?
3. First post
4. Starting with the solution vs. the problem