Hello all! I just wanted to share something with you that put the hairs on my neck up, and get your feedback. I attended a panel discussion yesterday about the future of academia, and what was revealed was quite scary. Basically, the panel members talked about how demands being placed upon universities are dramatically increasing with each academic year. There is a major push for unis to 'produce results' in order to receive funding. In terms of how this cascades down to PhD students, this is manifesting in greater pressure upon PhDers to 'justify' their research, and produce results for their departments alongside their already laborious PhD projects. I was wondering if the increasing 'commercialisation' of academia is affecting how you view your future prospects in academia?

Oh, and sorry for such a boring thread! I'm just curious if the ever-changing face of academic life is putting anyone off? I came into the PhD with a romantic view of life as a researcher (as I'm sure most of us do), and with each passing day, I'm starting to fear that I won't be able to meet the demands. I guess I had that naive 'ivory tower' view of academia, and my bubble's been burst.

I know exactly what you mean. A lot of the academics here remember the good old days, but complain of increasing commercialization. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with making money, but it can make for a very short-sighted approach. Sometimes "pure" research throws up unexpected benefits, but the accountants can't see that.

I remember an interview with James Watson, where he said that he felt sure him and Crick would not have made their discoveries under the conditions in academia today. They needed time and space to think: two things that the bloody auditors are determined to squeeze to the extreme.

great PHD student help, i think my supervisors are not experts in my field wat do I do

melib, depends what stage in your PhD you are at

later on in PhDs its very common for people to specialize in fields that their supervisors know nothing about (particularly in science, don't know about others) - unfortunately unless you know someone who does, it will be up to you to get it right and this means lots and lots of reading

But raising valid concerns with your supervisor about the direction of your project may help.

I know really that I am probably not cut out for this new academia. I am just not the super competent, hyper productive person that many people are.

I know exactly what you mean. I too started my PhD with a romanticised view of what academia would be like and the reality has fallen short in a number of ways. To me it all seems to be about numbers...numbers of students enrolled, number of potential students coming through the doors at open days, number of flashy new buildings, number of cappuccino 'pods' in each building, number of research projects on the books (whether they're managed well or not), number of sofas in the now-noisy library, increasing number of hours taught my T.A's rather than fully-qualified lecturers etc etc. Hardly anyone talks about it but it does seem to be all about money and sometimes I think I'd rather be in a private sector organisation which doesn't try pretend to pretend otherwise...or maybe I just need to stop ranting and deal with it!!

chrisrolinki, I know exactly what you mean. I'm worried that I won't have the hyper ambition and drive that it takes to make it in academia these days due to the ever-increasing demands. I sometimes feel I missed the boat, that I'm a PhD student at the wrong time. I seem to be more suited to the 1970s academic approach. My supervisor was telling me that things have changed dramatically since he was a researcher, and he's finding it difficult to keep up.

I too have concerns about this xeno. It's true, academia is changing dramatically with each year. I know that the RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) is constantly stepping it up, and keep introducing tougher criteria. I do wonder just how much academia will have changed by the time I've finished my PhD, but when I start to think about it, I get too panicky! I know of an academic who recently resigned due to all the pressures being placed upon him to conform to the new measures being implemented. I'm well scared, but I don't want my fear to stop me from finishing the PhD.

There was an article in THES about this issue. Several Nobel prize laureates said that if they early in their career would have had to meet the criteria that are set for academics in many universities nowadays, they would have been kicked out of their jobs very early on and would never got to the Nobel. I do believe them.

Is the latest buzz word about academia not about "econometrics", with the value of education being measured in purely vocational terms, ie. what sort of profession it equips you for, more money in your wages or salary, etc? EEEKKK!!!!! Doesn't knowledge have value in and of itself? Must everything be reduced to dollars and cents...er pounds and pence, or whatever monetary unit you want? Did ancient Greeks sit around and figure out the value of their knowledge on some kind of stock market scale? NO.

The value of a liberal arts education is to teach you how to THINK critically. The value of knowledge in a variety of academic discipines is not something which can or should be or benefits from being reduced to its monetary value.

Capitalistic measures may have their place in some fields, but in academia as a whole? What about things like art? Should people only produce art if it has economic value? Many of the Impressionist painters were not appreciated in their lifetimes, but gained their master status over time. Should the value of their work then or now be reduced to its economic impact ( which presumably is none?)

If everything is to be judged by its economic worth, then shut all the museums, get rid of the historical sites that do not fund themselves with ( American?! ) tourists, halt all things like clear blue skies, bird song, art appreciation, medieval music in choral evensong, nice sunrises and sunsets, and so forth. The idea of measuring everything in terms of money/economics is really infuriating. Academia should be more than a training ground for corporate wage slaves.

Getting useful results for society does not have to mean producing commercially usable findings. It could mean serving the public or voluntary sectors as well. But academics cannot expect the public purse to fund hobby research that neither offers much contribution to the fundamental building blocks of their discipline (basic science) nor offers useful results to broader society. There is an important issue for academics to get to trips with: simply working hard is not enough; their work has to be useful as well.