We tend to romanticise it, but in the end it's just another job. It shouldn't, because selling you doing science is not the same as doing science, but on the other hand social expectations are that you must have a job, so what kind of exemption were we hoping for exactly? Once you realise it's ordinary people looking for whatever ordinary people look for anywhere else everything falls into place. Some science gets done regardless, we're talking about professionals here.
Academia can be likened more to a clergy or priesthood than a job. Although academics are expected to publish, it's not like the results or output are as tangible or quantifiable compared to most jobs.
Well, it's not that. Output is quantifiable and expected, try to survive doing your thing before tenure (at least and don't). Alas, the Republic of Letters is long gone. Kind of an ought-is problem.
I don't know, I've mentioned tenure though. I know that Peter Higgs has published IIRC 11? papers and that he's talked about his former status at his departament and not being productive enough for the modern academic system.
That was about 15 books, several I've heard of, but it's unclear about academic papers at least on that web page. He's clearly making an impact with his ideas.
Why does a scholarly work need to be labeled as an ‘academic paper’ when evaluating someone’s work? Did work from the 17th century not qualify because it wasn’t published in a journal?
