科学与数学theguardian.com
彼得·希格斯：在当今学术体制下我不会有足够产出
Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system
2013 — 2016，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
《卫报》2013 年对希格斯玻色子提出者彼得·希格斯的专访。希格斯坦言自己性格孤僻、效率不高，若放在今天以论文产出和经费申请为核心的学术体系里，恐怕根本拿不到终身教职，更不可能有 1964 年那样的突破。文章引发了对现代学术评价制度扼杀深度思考的广泛讨论。
为什么经久不衰：它借诺奖得主的亲身经历，点出“发表或出局”的考核文化与真正原创性研究之间的矛盾——这一张力至今仍是学术界和知识工作者共同面对的问题。
HN 评论精选
历史上许多伟大科学家都是不合群的“异类”，现代学术体制的过度考核恰恰容不下他们。
希格斯不是唯一一个这么说的人。Brian Greene 也指出，如今以经费为导向的学术界不会给爱因斯坦十年时间去发展广义相对论。Eric Weinstein 写道，过去几十年我们一直在压制那些不合群的个体，或把他们赶出科研体系、推向创业公司和对冲基金，结果大学里充斥着过度审查的专业人士，成了扼杀最有独立意志的头脑的“卓越中心”。Weinstein 列举的“异类”——冯·诺依曼、爱因斯坦、居里、格罗滕迪克等——都受益于一个有足够时间和自由去完成毕生杰作的时代。
ChristianMarks查看英文原文
Higgs isn't alone in remarking that he would not have had the time today to conduct the kind of work he did in the 1960s. Brian Greene has remarked that today’s grant-driven academia would not have allowed Einstein the luxury of a decade in which to develop his General Theory of Relativity. Eric Weinstein wrote that, "We have spent the last decades inhibiting such socially marginal individuals or chasing them to drop out of our research enterprise and into startups and hedge funds. As a result our universities are increasingly populated by the over-vetted specialist to become the dreaded centers of excellence that infantilize and uniformize the promising minds of greatest agency." [1] Weinstein's "deviants and delinquents" include "von Neumann [skirt chasing], Gamow [hard drinking], Shockley [bigoted], Watson [misogynistic], Einstein [childish], Curie [slutty], Smale [lazy], Oppenheimer [politically treacherous], Crick [incompetent], Ehrenfest [murderous], Lang [meddlesome], Teller [monstrous] and Grothendieck [mentally unstable]." Higgs's observation suggests that the systematic stamping out of non-conscientious non-conformists is a byproduct of over-scheduling them. (Scheduling has to be considered independently of effort, ability and experience. [2]) Weinstein's deviants benefited from a historical period during which they had sufficient time and freedom to pursue their greatest work (von Neumann, who didn't need any time, is an exception). But I imagine that time is a luxury even for the deviants and delinquents who find themselves displaced from academia into startups. So what is really needed is a startup culture that provides for years of uninterrupted development and focus. (Not to mention a hiring process that actively selects for displaced deviants, but that's another post.) [1] http://www.edge.org/responses/q2013 Edge 2013 : WHAT SHOULD WE BE WORRIED ABOUT? [2] http://www.nber.org/papers/w16502 Don't Spread Yourself Too Thin: The Impact of Task Juggling on Workers' Speed of Job Completion. Decio Coviello, Andrea Ichino, Nicola Persico. NBER Working Paper No. 16502
一线博士现身说法：现代学术训练的核心其实是拉经费，认清这点后转去工业界是明智选择。
我在最顶尖的学府之一读完了博士。后来有人对我说：“不，你去那里学的是怎么写出能拿到经费的申请书，好管理一个实验室做下一批实验，然后再写申请拿经费。”他说得对：我受的训练，价值就在于学会拿经费去做研究。90 年代中期生物医学经费短期内翻倍，博士产量大增，教职竞争却越来越激烈。我看清了形势，评估后去了工业界，从不后悔。我仍与学术界合作、写论文做研究，但薪酬和发展空间远好于留在学术界。
dekhn查看英文原文
I attended grad school at one of the most prestigious institutions that exists. After I finished my PhD, I mentioned to somebody I had attended there and it had taught me to do science well. THe person I was speaking to looked at me funny and said, "Oh no. You went there to learn how to write grants that get funded, so that you can manage a lab that carries out the next set of experiments, so you can write grants that get funded.". They were right: the value of my training program was in how to get funded, so I could do research. Some of us saw the writing on the wall (grant funding for biomedical sciences doubled in a short period of time in the early to mid 90s, which greatly increased the rate of minted PhDs, which dramatically increased competition for slowly growing faculty positions). I looked around, evaluated my options, and left for industry. I never regretted it. i still collaborate with academia, and write papers and do research, but my compensation structure and the options I have vastly outweigh those has I stayed in academia and become a soft-funded researcher. Ultimately if your goal is to do blue-sky theoretical research you're going to have to work very hard to succeed. Maybe it's possible to do good theory and also be good at grantsmanship. I honestly don't know. But I decided not to play that game: there are LOTS of options out there. Don't be stubborn and insist on your blue-sky theory job. Instead, be realistic and figure out what you want to do, and how to obtain the time to do it.
热爱研究的人反而最不适合进学术界，教授已沦为科研管理者，研究成了副产品。
90 年代初接触科研环境时我就意识到：如果你真心热爱研究和知识，学术界恰恰是你最不该进入的地方——没有比这更能扼杀火花的了。现在我回去读博，能做点有意义的事，恰恰因为我不是普通博士生。有意思的是，我得到的反馈是：你做的事也许很好很重要，但不太可能让你在学术界成功，言下之意是应该放弃。另外，如今已没有真正的“资深研究者”，教授变成了科研管理者，真正的研究反倒成了难以避免的副产品——这和工业界只有转管理才能晋升如出一辙。
mpweiher查看英文原文
When I was first exposed to the research "environment" during my Diplom studies (undergraduate - graduate, early to mid 90ies), I immediately recognised that if you actually love research and knowledge, academia was the last thing you ever want to get into. No surer way to kill the spark. Now that I've gone back to do my PhD, the only reason I can do something I consider meaningful is because I am not a regular PhD student. Interestingly, that's also the feedback I get, though as "helpful" advice that while what I am doing may be both good and important, it is unlikely to lead to success in academia. With the implication that I should stop doing it and concentrate on something more reasonable. Fortunately, I am not particularly interested in success in modern academia, so I get to do something I consider both good and important. A related issue is that there really is no such thing as a senior researcher. Instead, professors are turned into research managers, responsible for helping their charges' careers, who then also turn into research managers. Actual research appears to be mostly a still not entirely avoidable side-effect. (And this seems similar to the way the only real way to advancement in industry is to switch to management, all dual-track equivalence rhetoric aside).
反方观点：以正常学术标准衡量，希格斯后期的产出确实太低，此事不足以证明考核文化有问题。
希格斯在 1964 年做出诺奖级工作后直到 1996 年退休，只发表了约 5 篇论文，且都不算出色。我认为这低于任何合理的标准，而不仅仅是当代标准。因此，除非他有杰出的教学记录，否则爱丁堡大学解雇他、换上更高产的人是合理的。所以我不认为希格斯差点被解雇能证明学术界“不发表就出局”的文化过了头。
bvv查看英文原文
Peter Higgs published about 5 scientific papers after his Nobel-winning work in 1964 until his retirement in 1996, none of which were particularly impressive. I think this is below any reasonable standards, not just below contemporary academic standards. Therefore, barring special circumstances like an exemplary teaching record, in my opinion Edinburgh University would have been right to sack him and replace him with a more productive person. In short: I don't think that Higgs nearly getting sacked is an accurate indication that academia has too much of a 'publish or perish' culture.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如果月球只有 1 像素：一个极其精确的太阳系模型（2014）
If the moon were only 1 pixel: A tediously accurate solar system model (2014)
一个网页版太阳系模型，以“如果月亮只有 1 像素”的真实比例呈现：你必须一路横向滚动，才能体会行星之间空旷到何等程度。
科学与数学上首页 7 次 · 2014–2025joshworth.com编辑精选沉浸式线性代数（2016）
Immersive Linear Algebra (2016)
《Immersive Linear Algebra》是一本完全免费、开放在线的线性代数“超文本教科书”，其最大特色是大量可交互的图形：读者可以直接拖动、操作图中的向量、矩阵和变换…
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2015–2024immersivemath.com编辑精选如何将贝果切成两个相连的半环（2009）
How to Slice a Bagel into Two Linked Halves (2009)
数学家 George Hart 的经典教程，演示如何用一刀把贝果切成两个相互扣住的环，并附上切割步骤与数学原理。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2022georgehart.com“犹太问题”：一组用于歧视的数学题
Jewish problems
一篇 arXiv 论文，整理并讨论苏联时期犹太学生在申请大学数学系时被问到的特殊数学难题：这些题往往有简单解法却极难想到，被用作面试中拒绝犹太考生的手段。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2011–2021arxiv.org你的身体并非为长久而造：人类死亡率数据的一课
Your body wasn’t built to last: a lesson from human mortality rates
文章从人类死亡率随年龄变化的统计规律出发，解释身体并非为长久使用而设计：年轻时死亡风险较低，之后随年龄近似指数上升，像复杂系统在不断累积损伤。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2018gravityandlevity.wordpress.com