I heared from one of my professors that the US doesn't appreciate Ph.D.s as much as Ph.D. that are conducting research. According to him the best way to get promoted or a pay raise is through research grants that the Ph.D. faculty has to apply (struggle) for. Once the Ph.D. gets a grant, he/she is likely to pay 50%+ of that grant to the institution. At this point in time he is only making about 40 % of what my research professor makes. :bugeye: Basically if you don't do research you are a second class citizen at the institution. The state and some institutions seem to treat their professors like garbage. It seems to be all about the money. Sad but true. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How is it being handled over there in germany,france, sweden, finland,russia,japan,china,australia,canada,etc. What is your take on this?
I can't tell you what it's like in other countries. However, I can tell that your assesment of academia in the U.S. is basically correct. "Publish or perish" is the motto. This is especially true at the larger state research universities. Smaller liberal arts colleges and private colleges tend to focus more on teaching. That's not to say there isn't a pressure to produce it's just less than at the state funded schools. In my experience, professors are not treated like garbage. Academia is freer and more relaxed than the corporate world. They have greater flexibility with their schedule. The way they teach classes is not micro-managed. Sad or not, the reality is that it is always about the money. The only difference between a research university and a large corporation is the product they are selling.
On the other hand, if one is a Ph.D., why not do research and publish? If he doesn't do that, he's just another teacher (in a higher institution) or whatever it is that he is doing, and he might as well have only a Masters degree. But I could be wrong.
its similar enough in the UK. If you dont do research and get noticed by publishing lots of papers (even though they are all continuations of each other adn most of the work was done by a grad student or udnergrad or something) you dont get money or recognition. Now, we need people doign research, but the problem is that the only "objective" way of measuring tha tpeopel are is by papers published, so the quality of the papers goes down as teh volume increases. And if your research doesnt ahve a practical appplication, forget it. Hence the hype involving nanotech, fuel cells, etc, since the researchers have to hype it all up in order to get any cash at all. I am udner the impression that most research in teh UK is done at universities, companys having closed down their own research facilities since uni's are cheaper, and hence companies own large chunks of what come out of unicersities. Which leads to problems with regards to copyright and when results get released etc.
