Often I am surprised (but shouldn't be) in my academic work what people don't know or haven't tried to do
I have read many people assuming PHd types to be very wealthy - they tie PHD's to extensive knowledge, depth and breadth based and large incomes - but that is often not the case:
econlog.econlib.org
I find it odd, too, that so many academics profess to be egalitarians, yet academia as a whole has produced one of the most radically inegalitarian societies to be seen since Louis XVI fled Versailles.
This raises the issue of the similarities and differences between the competition for prestige in academia and the competition for money in business. Presumably, to avoid hypocrisy, an academic who opposes inequality in income ought to be able to identify some differences between the academic tournament and the business tournament.
In this essay, I argued that the academic tournament is more effective.
the overall results of the academic tournament appear to me to be highly defensible. In general, it is fair to say that professors with impressive publication records and tenure at prestigious universities are more accomplished in their disciplines than those who lack such trophies.
The tournament for choosing CEO’s of large, established corporations probably is less effective than the academic tournament. It appears to me that idiosyncratic personal connections, timing, and luck play a big role in determining who gets to be a major CEO.
In my opinion, if you could repeat the academic tournament numerous times, a reasonable number of the same people would wind up as professors at top schools. But my guess is that if you could repeat the business tournament numerous times, the set of CEO's would be different. soros and buffet got lucky?
Apart from tournament effectiveness, some people argue that the academic tournament is less evil because the competition is over something more worthwhile than money. I find that argument less persuasive. When money is involved, markets can get the social values reasonably correct. My guess is that when it comes to academic research, the divergence between private value and social value can be much larger--probably in both directions. I don't know that I agree with this - hehe
For what it's worth, the inequality of outcomes in academic life feels more wrong to me than the inequality of outcomes in business life. I think that the inequality of outcomes in business is greater than the inequality of talents. But I think that such differences are even worse in academic life. Moreover, the tenure system and the lack of any progressive "tax" on prestige makes academic differences more persistent.
It is common for academics to say, "I could go out and win the business tournament, but I am more interested in higher things." I believe that is self-serving nonsense. When professors display that attitude, they forfeit my respect.
stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com
2. Academic inequalities arise from a more legitimate process than business inequalities. The success that comes from peer review is more tolerable than the success that comes from office politics, rent-seeking and dumb luck. Many egalitarians (me for one) care about how inequalities arose, not about their mere existence.
Of course, these differences are idealized. Arnold Kling says:
I think that the inequality of outcomes in business is greater than the inequality of talents. But I think that such differences are even worse in academic life.
If he's right - some concrete examples would be nice! - then Jane Galt's complaint that " I [have not] experienced any other organisational culture, even in hyper-competitive consulting or investment banking, in which professional success is so readily confused with personal worth" would be even more powerful.
These caveats aside, I see no big hypocrisy in academics tolerating inequalities of academic merit more than they tolerate inequalities of income.
Haha - I like the light analogy MOO - my mom would always look right under the light for her keys - and they would always be in her purse - but it had got so cluttered she had to dig deep to find them and sometimes it was so cluttered she just gave up - hehe - check this out - its all about scalability - you will love this short 30 second commercial.
www-03.ibm.com - TOO TOO FUNNY - I love this ad
This what the big boys using MOO - what BIG IRON resources do you have access to at your UNI?
www-03.ibm.com
You may want to read I Robot MOO - the future is LESS people - more machines.
mainframe.typepad.com
Today's most sophisticated mainframe, the Z9, stands a mere 6 feet 4 inches tall, weighs 3,836 lbs, and occupies a footprint of 27 square feet. I was in the room at the Hotel W last month when the Z9 was announced. It was quite impressive to see the sleek space-age system on stage with the power to replace thousands of separate servers. More than a billion dollars was invested in the engineering and development of the machine.
People have talked about the death of the mainframe for years but after seeing the Z9, you can be sure they are not going away for a very long time. In addition to the Z9, IBM announced an extension of it's incredibly powerful virtualization engine software. The combination of the new mainframe and the new software will make it possible to turn a real datacenter into a virtual datacenter. This is a really big deal. CEO's, CIO's, and CFO's are making plans to consolidate their datacenters using the new combo because virtual datacenters require fewer people, offer more reliability, and are much less costly to operate. Sounds good, but what is a datacenter and what is a virtual datacenter? (read more)
Now MOO I know some of these folks doing models with this processing power who have billion trillion dollar type folks - they have models you probably haven't heard of - maybe - I doubt it though - but MOO I LOVE your spirit - reminds me of john henry fighting that machine digging through the mountain - hehe.
Message 21610593 |
