The biggest most unfortunate lie is "I'll get a job at the end which will make this all worthwhile and not the most expensive waste of time and mental health imaginable." This lie is told from all sides. Universities say it. Advisors say it. Postdocs say it. Parents say it. Students say it to themselves and to each other.
In English-speaking countries, being in 'academia' usually means being employed in a research and/or teaching capacity at a uni and not working towards a degree anymore. Some may say being faculty, post-docs are a bit in between.
Sorry, no. The single largest population employed in research and teaching capacity is graduate students by several multiples over the next categories.
Find a few people in PhD programs in the US and tell them you don't think they're in academia and see how they react.
> The single largest population employed in research and teaching capacity is graduate students
Which is why I clarified "and not working towards a degree anymore".
> Find a few people in PhD programs in the US and tell them you don't think they're in academia
I have a lot more experience interacting with PhD students than you seem to assume, and I can assure you that one of the most worn out conversation topics is whether they should go into academia after graduation. We can nitpick what that says about whether they are currently in there, but that's pointless. The parent was implying that the prototypical image of someone who is 'in academia' is a PhD student, which is definitely not the case. The way the term is usually used, the prototypical instance of someone who is 'in academia' is a faculty member (tenured or not).
Edit: check out the description here if you don't believe me: https://www.findaphd.com/guides/working-in-academia they take a somewhat broader stance than me above, but they make it clear too that academia starts after the PhD.
This seems very tied to the specific phrase "working in academia" which you appear to have introduced. Would you argue that grad students aren't academics?
Of course not - being an academic means working in academia. In the English-speaking world at least, in other parts it may mean other things (eg people who have an academic degree, regardless of what they do now).
I mean stereotype of the head-in-the-clouds ivory tower academic comes from somewhere I guess, but most of the folks I've met in academics have been a bit more pragmatic than this list would seem to indicate.
Especially in STEM, where every grad student thinks they are the unique person who has their head on straight and is just waiting to bail for industry.
Flashback to the time that I bumped into my friend coming out of the research library in the afternoon. He was ABD at the time. He made an attempt to say hi but was incoherent. I played it off like a regular conversation, because I knew he'd been writing all day.
I'm outside Academia so I'm asking, but you don't think that the idea of "Engineering doesn't matter" has started to change with the introduction of AI and ML into business and the popularization of CS in modern culture?
While I find your reasoning reasonable, I will provide an example from the other side: a mentor who later got the Nobel Prize told me "the first time you study something you should get right the order of magnitude, the second time you should get right the decimals, and the third time you give it to the engineers". This is how they think in top level academia.
Pedants don't think they're pedants. Like Carlin said, anyone driving faster than you is a maniac, anyone driving slower is a moron. (Anyone less rigorous than you is sloppy, anyone more is a pedant.)
