next »

[stringyone]

OP,

As a mathematician, I must say that you really need a reality check.

Based upon your original and subsequent posts, it appears that you are intelligent and a hard worker but you don't understand what it means to be a mathematician.

Acing your quals shows that you have the knowledge base to do mathematics, but to be a mathematician you need to be able to create your own work, that is, become an independent researcher.

In order to become an independent researcher, you must first be able to read and interpret others' work independently.  Most proofs you read at the professional or apprentice (i.e., graduate) level are "sloppy."  At this level, it is your responsibility to fill in the obvious details.  

Example:
Most proofs in my graduate algebra book were sketches, "omitted," "trivial," or "left to the reader." At first it was frustrating, but somewhere in the middle of ring theory, I stopped looking for the proofs before thinking about the proofs.  In essence, I learned how to read mathematics efficiently.

By asking your professors to help you fill in the blanks for these "sloppy proofs" you are, in effect, depriving yourself of a crucial part of your professional development.   I can fully understand why your professors and advisor grew impatient with you.  

***

Also, you have to understand the concept of professional courtesy.  Whether you are in academia or in industry, being professionally courteous is absolutely necessary.  

Here is the problem with posting a review on amazon.com:
No mathematician will read an amazon review, especially not an AMS publication.   The people who read the amazon reviews may not be able to differentiate a typo from a genuine error. If you weren't able to differentiate the two, then do you honestly think a curious undergrad/jr. grad student/grant administrator/etc. would be able to make the distinction?  You basically cost him money.  That's pretty significant. Anyone would be ticked off by your actions.  Your advisor was doing you a favor by acknowledging your inpropriety.

Oh.. and the response to your proof translates to "Dude, chill the F out, you're not perfect either."

What you should have done is express your concerns to the author directly via email.  The author would have appreciated your attention to his work, explained the typo and acknowledged you in the next edition.

[sciencephd]

Please answer my question once and for all:  Do you value your reputation more than your ideas or students?

I'll answer this when you provide evidence for your assertions.

This is game-playing.  Just answer my question.

You probably don't want to leave me guessing because you know what I will guess.

I really don't want to waste more energy on you because I think it is obvious at this point that you do in fact value your reputation far more than spreading your good ideas.

OK, I'm going to come clean now and fess up to the TRUTH.

I have been heavily influenced by the philosopher Jay Z.  When I was young, and just getting started in my academic career, things were tough.  I tried going the regular route, pure in my ideas, publishing the TRUTH, but had a hard knock academic life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxtn6-XQupM

But then I started to understand the meaning of life, as defined by this philosopher, and started pimpin' out my ideas, generally frontin' and focusin on my rep'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plUy7Me_fZQ
Perhaps this was my downfall, but I truly have a better life now.  Since I learned to focus on pimpin' out my ideas big time, all has gone well.  This is why all my students and colleagues give me mad props' and generally refer to me as mac daddy. 

All I needed to know about academia I leaned it all from Jay Z.

[polly_mer]

Sciencephd's reputation just went up about two notches with that last post.

[scheherazade]

Sciencephd's posts have an overabundance of tag line material.  We could publish a book.

[polly_mer]

Sciencephd's posts have an overabundance of tag line material.  We could publish a book.

I'll cut you in for half and we'll just send Sciencephd a nice box of candy to acknowledge him for his efforts.  After all, editing and compilation is the hard part.  He just has to do the easy, fun part and coast on his reputation.

[bread_pirate_naan]

Basically, I'm trying to address a problem I see with academia in hopes that it can be repaired before it's too late.

Well, cut the messianic shtick or win over some disciples, 'cause you ain't a martyr, saint or sorcerer.  If your sorcery were any good, you wouldn't need to be this obvious, or failing to meet your objectives. 

Work on that.

[prephd]

Because the public is paying for your job.  I'm sure most people would be alarmed by the truth that academia is an institution of reputation, not the dissemination of new ideas for the benefit of all.

Kind of like public office?

[glowdart]

OP, also, I am curious to know.  Joan Jett in the "Bad Reputation" video kindly provided by TRB serves to remind us of an eternal truth:  "Beauty is truth, truth beauty."  If people in academia are in the Truth business, does this mean we need to spend another 1/3 of our energy on hair, makeup, and wardrobe?

That figure was not meant to be realistic, only to show that we should be striving for balance and equilibrium between these three forces, because overemphasis on one means de-emphasis on the others.

Umm... math, right?

There's that tiny problem that your ratio is necessarily true based on your assumption that there should be balance between three forces.  One effort divided equally into three forces = 1/3 of effort on each force, no?  So, yes, over-emphasis on one does mean de-emphasis on the other.  Don't you want there to be a different ratio since clearly in your view we're spending too much time on our reputations?   

Am I doing the math wrong?   

[scheherazade]

I don't understand the claim that one should work for 1/3 of the time on "reputation".  How does one work on reputation, if not part of teaching and research?

[sciencephd]

Umm... math, right?

There's that tiny problem that your ratio is necessarily true based on your assumption that there should be balance between three forces.  One effort divided equally into three forces = 1/3 of effort on each force, no?  So, yes, over-emphasis on one does mean de-emphasis on the other.  Don't you want there to be a different ratio since clearly in your view we're spending too much time on our reputations?   

Am I doing the math wrong?   

You're forgetting that some of this occurs on the astral plane.

[glowdart]

Umm... math, right?

There's that tiny problem that your ratio is necessarily true based on your assumption that there should be balance between three forces.  One effort divided equally into three forces = 1/3 of effort on each force, no?  So, yes, over-emphasis on one does mean de-emphasis on the other.  Don't you want there to be a different ratio since clearly in your view we're spending too much time on our reputations?   

Am I doing the math wrong?   

You're forgetting that some of this occurs on the astral plane.

So true! 

That pre-posthumous manipulation of effort through self-flagellation significantly alters our reputation in a ratio which offers returns that are diminished by our guilt for not cultivating snowflakes and yet are augmented by our Truthiness. 


Or is it the peyote?   The wormholes?   

[concordancia]

I don't understand the claim that one should work for 1/3 of the time on "reputation".  How does one work on reputation, if not part of teaching and research?

OOOHHH, I know this one. Think of the divas. They spend all that time telling everyone how great they are; making sure that the entire listserve has read their stellar article, etc.

We all know what a great reputation they have.

And is it just my field? We do have some people who have pretty good reputations based on service/ administration. And no, not ALL of them fall into the diva category.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

The truth is that the rest of the world has suffered because of the stagnation of ideas coming out of academia.  The sole reason for this stagnation is the overemphasis on reputation, at the expense of education.

On the contrary, prima facie evidence that you are wrong is the ever-increasing pace of scientific (and mathematical) breakthroughs in the world, mostly from academia.    If you didn't see this in your mathematics program, then either you were not looking very hard or were simply not far enough along to recognize it.  What the University system allows, that was missing for most of human history (even modern human history), is for someone who is not independently wealthy to express their talents and engage in intellectual pursuit without starving to death. 

To be sure, there are alternatives to traditional universities: for example, the Naropa Institute was founded 35 years ago to great acclaim with very much the kind of philosophy you are espousing.  Interestingly, the number of interesting mathematical and scientific breakthroughs that have emerged from Naropa and similar institutions is essentially zero.  (At the same time, there is no denying that such organizations have had some influence on mainstream scientists, especially of my generation; the re-emergence of nonlinear dynamics, was somewhat expedited by conversations that took place at the Santa Fe Institute.)  You talk about stagnation: the people I know who are most interested in alternative approaches to science are caught in quagmire of "schools", mainly of 19th or 20th-century German or Russian origin (Steiner, Goethe, Ouspensky, Gurdjieff, etc).  Goethe and Steiner were smart men whose broad attempts at integrated natural philosophy were ambitious and remarkable, but their science has long ago been refuted by careful experiment.

As for the quest for "truth", I don't know quite what you mean.  God or Buddha or whoever, if they exist, don't need to prove mathematical theorems; their axiom set consists of all true statements, and all proofs are "one-liners".  Mathematics is a social activity.  You can engage in mathematical-looking activity outside of the academy, but it is meaningless until you share it with others.  - DvF

[galactic_hedgehog]

OK, I've think I've read everything but I still confused on one point.  How does the OP plan on listing his Amazon.com book reviews on his CV?

[onestep]

Was she worried she would be seen as a bad teacher if my proofs had any mistakes?  Or was it simply bad etiquette to go to the higher-ups without consulting first?  I strongly suspect the former and not the latter.

This shows clearly that the name of the game is reputation, reputation, reputation.

I confess to not reading the entire 11 pages of posts, and this may have been previously discussed, but this section caught my eye.  It's enlightening that "strongly suspect" leads to "shows clearly."  These multiple inferential leaps don't make for convincing arguments.

To take the point head-on, it might possibly be true that your mentor and the author were only concerned about their reputations.  Yet, to generalize so vastly based on two datapoints undermines any assertions about brilliance or insight.