Yes, that's what's missing from this article: recognizing academics as humans and not perfect idealistic beings.
To me criticisms like this need to at least suggest paths towards solutions. If the system is already as good as it can reasonably work, how can we criticize it?
It needed at least to suggest paths for researchers outside academia: will we get more research done outside? Will it fit better those idealistic goals?
To me criticisms like this need to at least suggest paths towards solutions. If the system is already as good as it can reasonably work, how can we criticize it?
It needed at least to suggest paths for researchers outside academia: will we get more research done outside? Will it fit better those idealistic goals?