In spring of 2008, as I was interviewing for jobs, I briefly considered going to UCSD. The interview there was a vast success for them (i.e. I, the candidate, liked them a lot). While I was quite upset about not having any interviews at the top universities, it was also quite obvious to me that UCSD would not be a bad place to be.
Unfortunately, the sequence of events took a turn that contradicted what they had been telling me. They were originally hoping to make two offers, one to me and one to Costis. As this plan was rejected by the higher authorities, they went ahead and made an offer to Costis with something like a 1-week expiration date, promising me a quick offer at the end of the week if he hadn't accepted in the mean time.
As you might guess, I had no hesitation in sending the following email:
Dear **** and ****,
I very much enjoyed my visit to UCSD and continuing contact with your faculty. Thank you very much for inviting me.
However, I must let you know that recent developments, such as an unfortunate hiring decision reached by your department that you have kindly communicated to me, have cast some doubt in my mind regarding your long-term strategy for becoming one of the top research departments in the theory of computation. It is not without regret that I have reached the conclusion that my employment in your department might not be mutually beneficial at this stage.
I would therefore like to withdraw my application from consideration by your hiring committee. I would appreciate it if you could communicate this in a timely manner to the relevant members of your faculty, along with my regrets for the situation.
With best regards and due consideration,
Mihai Patrascu
Reportedly, some people in the department found this to be funny, some others were annoyed, and yet others were depressed. Obviously, the delivery was meant to be funny, but the message was nothing other than serious (it was not passionate, for instance). Their decision had revealed important information about their goals and thought process, and this information helped me reach my decision.
They did actually make me an offer the next week, and invited me to a re-visit, which, reportedly, would've been quite nice (featuring sail boats, for instance). People who didn't know me encouraged me to go, hoping I could change my mind. People who knew me encouraged me to go as retaliation (have fun on their money). However, my idea of fun in the nature does not include any of the pampering I was certain to get, so I turned them down without further consideration.
One of my principles in life is to never mistake a loser's award for an award. Sure, one could tell one self that getting a faculty job is great, that the market is tough, that getting an offer in any circumstance is a nice achievement, etc. But my own conclusion was that, for reasons that merited further investigation, I had simply not gotten an interview at the top places, and lost in some direct competition with Costis. That interview season was nothing but a failure; that I should get a job somewhere was not a success for someone with my CV.
***
Today, I received another loser's award. MIT gave 3 Sprowls awards (aka Best Thesis in Computer Science), including one to me. However, they can only forward 2 theses to the ACM competition, and they instead chose to forward another theory thesis.
Now, I am not trying to insult the Sprowls award. I'm sure it was a success to many people who received it. But I was convinced that I had a serious claim to the ACM award, so this decision came as a major surprise to me. I have no intention of painting this award as anything other than a failure. Unlike interviews (which I will likely go through again and affect my career in nontrivial ways), this incident probably doesn't even deserve serious consideration. I doubt there are lessons to be learned beyond a reminder of the politics inside academia, and the lip-service type of commitment that our discipline has to proving lower bounds.
One question remains, though. What should I write back? Right now, the only thing I can think of is to instruct them to send my certificate to Santa Claus, 100 Snow Way, North Pole (or maybe to 100 Lungamare, Pula, Croatia).
![[home]](http://people.csail.mit.edu/mip/images/home.gif){kind=small}
80 comments:
You should see Little Miss Sunshine (which is a very nice movie). The guy there had a similar attitude to yours...
Anyway, its quite OK to lose some battles - its important to win the war... I think you are mistaking minor side shows for the main event.
--S
Why do you think you lost to Costis? What will you do differently next go-round?
While it is probably natural to feel bitterness, I find it surprising that you are unable to comprehend some simple facts of life.
You are attributing your not getting these awards to something negative like politics, and thereby discrediting good work of others. The simple fact is, there is no such thing as the absolute best paper/thesis/theory person. There are numerous people who are all equally good, and in the end it becomes apples vs oranges.
Different people have varying aesthetics which they use to judge papers/thesis/other people.
For instance, do you think you can come up with a selection that everybody else would agree on?
In the end, there's enough space and recognition in this world for many to share..
I did watch Little Miss Sunshine, but I don't see any connection right now. Which guy?
At any rate, I am certainly not mistaking the side shows from the war. Just using the side shows to gauge partial progress.
@Prasad: I don't see how I am disparaging Vinod's work. But you will, of course, allow me the personal opinion that my thesis is significantly stronger.
The argument that "it's hard to aggregate many criteria and make a decision that pleases everybody" may hold some truth but it's entirely unproductive. You certainly would not like the winner to think that he only won because it was hard for the committee to make the best decision.
When you were first loser at the IOI, did you throw the medal away?
The poem on Costis' web page is ironically appropriate:
What a misfortune, although you are made
for fine and great works
this unjust fate of yours always
denies you encouragement and success;
that base customs should block you;
and pettiness and indifference.
And how terrible the day when you yield
(the day when you give up and yield),
and you leave on foot for Susa,
and you go to the monarch Artaxerxes
who favorably places you in his court,
and offers you satrapies and the like.
And you accept them with despair
these things that you do not want.
Your soul seeks other things, weeps for other things;
the praise of the public and the Sophists,
the hard-won and inestimable Well Done;
the Agora, the Theater, and the Laurels.
How can Artaxerxes give you these,
where will you find these in a satrapy;
and what life can you live without these.
What sort of MIT politics are you talking about?
Sour grapes? Sore loser?
Have you ever thought that, perhaps, may be, your majesty, you are not as good as you think you are?
Whether someone else's thesis is significantly weaker is for other people to say, not for you.
Your arrogance is not going to serve you well, in the short, medium, or long term. Remember that.
Mihai,
I personally think of you as a very strong researcher, and although some bitterness is natural, I find your level of bitterness surprising (or maybe I'm just surprised you'd post about it...).
In the UCSD case, (I think, correct me if wrong) you have NO IDEA why they chose to offer the job to Costis first. It could have been inside politics where a single professor essentially won a round of rock-paper-scissors to give the offer to his preferred candidate first... (or maybe bartered something else for that right). If this was the case, then your response seems very out of place. Similar considerations may apply to the thesis award.
--J.
Perhaps people at UCSD decided to make the offer to Costis because, everything being equal, people prefer to work with a "nice person" as opposed to as a**hole.
I am pretty sure that the hiring committee at UCSD, after receiving your letter, would have felt vindicated that they made the unsuccessful offer to Costis, instead of making the offer to you.
Sprowls awards are big honors, but they are as much an award to the adviser as they are to the student, in fact doubly so--the advisor gets credit for advising an award-winning student and often, the adviser's own research is included in the thesis.
I've got a job for you! The work isn't much fun and I can't afford to pay anything, but you are the only one I want. I promise to tell you every day your thesis was the best and remind you that UCSD and MIT, the fools, don't know what they're missing.
Two questions:
1) Would you write such a letter to the MIT EECS faculty search committee?
2) If not, why?
Grow up!
If you're going to be upset every time that you're not judged to be the absolute best, but only to be pretty good, then you're going to be upset often. You may well be the latter, but certainly are not the former.
Oh come on, this isn't politics, Costis' research has had much more impact than yours, its not even close.
the loser is getting the loser's awards, so..? am i missing something here?
Why do you think you lost to Costis? What will you do differently next go-round?
He was seen as riding a big wave of research (of course, much bigger than his own research, but his results were important enough to be seen at the top of the wave). How to turn your research field into a wave remains an open problem.
When you were first loser at the IOI, did you throw the medal away?
The IOI is an objective competition based on what you do during some 10 hours of your life. A thesis award is someone's evaluation of a fixed object, and you may have your own opinion on the worth of the object. They are fundamentally different.
Your arrogance is not going to serve you well, in the short, medium, or long term. Remember that.
Thank you for the advice. But as I've often said, I am much less arrogant than I may come across. It's just a matter of expressing opinions forcefully when I do have them, which is quite different from always holding a certain type of opinion.
I am pretty sure that the hiring committee at UCSD, after receiving your letter, would have felt vindicated that they made the unsuccessful offer to Costis, instead of making the offer to you.
As I said, they did make me an offer after my letter, so you are probably seeing things in a rather different light from them.
1) Would you write such a letter to the MIT EECS faculty search committee?
Sure, in similar circumstances.
If you're going to be upset every time that you're not judged to be the absolute best, but only to be pretty good, then you're going to be upset often. You may well be the latter, but certainly are not the former.
I find your second sentence to be deeply insulting. I have no interest in being "pretty good."
As for the first, I think you are oversimplifying to the point of being ridiculous. I submit a lot of papers to STOC/FOCS without claiming they should each get the best paper award. Most of my positions are well thought of (you are of course welcome to disagree with the conclusion).
In the UCSD case, you have NO IDEA why they chose to offer the job to Costis first. It could have been inside politics where a single professor essentially won a round of rock-paper-scissors to give the offer to his preferred candidate first... (or maybe bartered something else for that right). If this was the case, then your response seems very out of place. Similar considerations may apply to the thesis award.
I think there is an important misunderstanding here, that may affect other people as well.
I know perfectly well that little random events (of the horse-trading / rock-paper-scissors type) occasionally decide important things.
The reason I am upset with the thesis award is the gap between (1) me thinking that the thesis is a strong candidate for the ACM award; (2) the MIT committee thinking either that it's worse than some other, or only that it's similar enough to be horse-traded with it.
In other words, losing the nomination is not an indication of being judged worse, only an indication of not being judged noticeably better. That is enough to be upsetting.
As for UCSD, they did misrepresent their goals and their opinions before external circumstance forced them to contradict themselves. It is not surprising that this can backfire.
Oh come on, this isn't politics, Costis' research has had much more impact than yours, its not even close.
More careful reading will convince you that the word "politics" only appears in the second part of the post, which is on a different topic.
As for your assertion, it depends on how you define impact and what universities are, say they are, or should be looking for.
I recall you got an offer from Gatech as well. What was the reason you turned that one down as well?
I am a little disappointed in many comments. If one of the anonymous had been in Mihai's position, I am sure he/she would feel the same. The only difference is that Mihai expressed it in public and people pouched on him.
There will always be a sense of bitterness when you don't get the due acknowledgment you think you deserved. That's what the post is all about and not the case of sour grapes.
As for UCSD, they did misrepresent their goals and their opinions before external circumstance forced them to contradict themselves.
What was the misrepresentation? You don't seem to mention it in your post. As best I can tell, UCSD told you that they were interested both you and Costis and would love to make offers to both of you simultaneously. When that was overruled by the administration, they did it consecutively instead. Sure, this is a change, but it's a small and understandable change. Based on what you've revealed in the post, I don't see any misrepresentation of goals or opinions. Is there more to the story?
Mihai, if you want people to think that you are the best, work hard to get the Fields medal. A phd from MIT, or a faculty offer from UCSD, or a few STOC/FOCS papers is impressive, but is not really a big deal. But a Field medal for tcs people, that will definitely be the first.
Let me see if I understand correctly:
1. Mihai tells us that he got some loser awards.
2. Mihai is upset about (1). (In the UCSD case it is not clear if he is upset because of his performance or because of other's assessment, or both. In the MIT case it's clear he is upset because of other's assessment.)
3. Readers are upset about (2).
4. Mihai says in other posts he doesn't like competitions but seems to view life like a competition.
5. Mihai is extremely candid about making his thoughts known.
6. Some readers exploit (5), while others complain about those doing the exploitation.
7. Mihai makes a very insulting remark which non-Romanians do not notice, and most Romanians do not mention. Of course, it's more funny-insulting than insulting-insulting.
8. No, I won't say what (7) is about.
All in all, a very funny post+comments :)
Liitle miss sunshine - The father: "Being second place is being the first loser". I think its important to do good research, anything else is society trying to make you into a good rat and play its stupid games. --S
I always liked and respected your candidness.
I see nothing wrong in you feeling outraged, and wish you all success for the future.
Perhaps you are not the loser but the winner!!
This is among the smallest blunders of UCSD theory hiring over the last decade.
I recall you got an offer from Gatech as well. What was the reason you turned that one down as well?
It doesn't make any interesting story. I added up all considerations, and concluded that ATT might be slightly better as a work environment for the next 5 years.
Mihai, if you want people to think that you are the best, work hard to get the Fields medal[...] But a Field medal for tcs people, that will definitely be the first.
As far as I know, TCS people haven't won a Nobel prize for peace, either. That doesn't necessarily mean you should work for one :) I believe my work falls quite clearly outside of the interests of the Fields medal.
Liitle miss sunshine
I remember now, thanks.
"But my own conclusion was that, for reasons that merited further investigation, I had simply not gotten an interview at the top places, and lost in some direct competition with Costis. That interview season was nothing but a failure; that I should get a job somewhere was not a success for someone with my CV."
Gem. Its really about what you hold dearest to your heart, and I have total respect for your sentiment. I also believe that this is what will eventually set you apart from the rest.
So true. There should be some things in life that are simply not open to compromise...
Sorry to say this, as a female researcher I really feel for quite a long time that most of the tcs community is bunch of snobs.
Sorry but I find your reaction amusing.
Perhaps you should avoid thinking in total orders and start thinking such awards in a more probabilistic manner.
The committees sample the "score" of each candidate from some underlying distribution of "worthiness".
The further apart the two distributions are the more predictable the outcome is. The more similar the distributions, the more random the outcome of the committee selection.
And I have to say that the phrase in your letter, "the hiring decision reached by your department ... have cast some doubt in my mind regarding your long-term strategy for becoming one of the top research departments in the theory of computation" is insulting, not funny.
How would you feel if after applying to UCSD you got a rejection reply saying "Sorry, we realized that you also applied to other schools. This decision has cast some doubt in our minds regarding your long-term strategy for becoming one of the top researchers in the theory of computation."
"How would you feel if after applying to UCSD you got a rejection reply saying "Sorry, we realized that you also applied to other schools. This decision has cast some doubt in our minds regarding your long-term strategy for becoming one of the top researchers in the theory of computation.""
So true. Arrogance is good, but it should be limited.
Hamming's seminar on "you and your research" gives a nice illustration of how it is possible to get the considerable benefits of egotism without needlessly pissing people off. See http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.pdf
Ha. Talk about a gracious loser... not!
I'm sure many people felt, internally, that they deserved that the Sprowls award, and that you only got it because of politics. However, they all probably had the good sense to allow for the possibility that they _didn't_ actually deserve it as much as you and the other winners.
Or perhaps they were simply not petty/malicious enough to disparage the winner in a public forum.
To rgrig, I dont think people are upset about Mihai being upset. People are upset about Mihai putting down Costis and Vinod's research as less deserving of the awards that they have received. Pettiness and arrogance, not some poor 5-year old's feelings, that's what they are upset about.
Dude, GET OVER YOURSELF! Your hubris in defeat is pathetic. If this post isn't someone self-destructing, I don't know what is. If you keep up this attitude, don't be surprised if no one hires you, no one wants to work with you, and you fade into oblivion before you reach middle-age.
The world has seen a lot of smart people, and you are not the greatest of all time -- at least, you have not yet earned that recognition. Every Turing Award Winner that I have met has been humble and well-adjusted, and you clearly are neither. Have fun on the way down!
Ha! Another comedy masterpiece blog-post by Mihai!
You are certainly #1 at blogging!
Please post more often.
@annonymous coward@01:16: "Pettiness" and "arrogance" are concepts I try to avoid because they are subjective :) My point (3) simply tried to say people where upset about Mihai's description of being upset. I do not dispute that that description is arrogant. (In fact, I find it irrelevant whether it is or not, but amusing that people put so much feeling into it.)
Continuing the series "did I understand correctly?"... there seems to be a point where my understanding of the text is significantly different from others'.
Mihai says that "recent developments, such as an unfortunate hiring decision reached by your department that you have kindly communicated to me, have cast some doubt in my mind regarding your long-term strategy for becoming one of the top research departments in the theory of computation."
To me it was clear the first time I read it that the "unfortunate hiring decision" is (1) that only one theorist is being offered the job at a time instead of two at a time. Surely, if you want to be a good department in a certain field you must try to get all the good people you can. Instead, many commenters seem to think that the "unfortunate decision" is (2) preferring Costis to Mihai.
Mihai, would you be so kind to clarify which one you meant? Thanks.
The committees sample the "score" of each candidate from some underlying distribution of "worthiness".
It seems hopeless to tell blog commenters to read before they write, but you may observe that this point was made before. As I said then, I'm not upset about the probabilistic nature of these things, just about the difference in worthiness being perceived small enough so that the distributions overlap significantly.
How would you feel if after applying to UCSD you got a rejection reply saying "Sorry, we realized that you also applied to other schools. This decision has cast some doubt in our minds regarding your long-term strategy for becoming one of the top researchers in the theory of computation."
Certainly MIT or Princeton or Berkeley would be in a position to write such a letter (not that I expect them to).
To me it was clear the first time I read it that the "unfortunate hiring decision" is[...] Mihai, would you be so kind to clarify which one you meant? Thanks.
This is like doing text analysis on a piece of stand-up comedy. As I said originally, the letter that I wrote to UCSD was meant to announce a serious decision in a funny way, and indeed it was interpreted as funny. It doesn't matter what the text really meant.
This is like doing text analysis on a piece of stand-up comedy.
Precisely! Are you saying there's something wrong with that?
and indeed it was interpreted as funny.
I have no doubt. Except which meaning of "funny" you are using. :)
Mihai, you may considered the letter to UCSD to be funny, but from what I read not that many people consider it to be funny.
What can be a joke in stand-up comedy on a Saturday night in a comedy club, may be grossly inappropriate for a corporate meeting on Monday morning.
Glad that you did not offend anyone at UCSD. But the danger of not understanding your joke was there, with ugly consequences.
Mihai,
I was on a hiring committee in one of these schools that decided not to interview you. Although I hesitated to post this comment, I think what I have to say will be helpful to your career.
The reason we decided against further considering your case was because of your reputation as a very difficult, arrogant, and opinionated person. We even read your blog and found many posts that confirmed this reputation.
At least in our university, a post like this one significantly hurts your chances of getting a job. We don't want to hire a person who writes a blog post insulting their departmental colleagues every time they're not nominated for a fellowship or an award. "I can't believe my department decided to nominate X for a Sloan Fellowship when my research is so much deeper than X's."
You're smart, but there are *many* (equally) smart (or smarter) people who are also publicly nice.
One possibility: Maybe the "top universities" do not consider you to be a "top researcher". Maybe other theses were better than yours.
Did it ever occur to you that there might be other people who are doing better work than you are? In my perusal of your work, it would seem that there are many researchers who have had more impact.
After reading your post, I've concluded that the universities that did interview you made a grave mistake (I am at one of them). I'm breathing a sigh of relief that you did not end up in my department. Not too many people would relish dealing with your disproportionate hubris and inability to be gracious in defeat.
Dear Mihai,
I've not seen many people as strong as you in Computer Science, especially at your age. UCSD does not deserve you (and I am utterly sure that if you had gone to UCSD, you would have been even more bitter after 5 years than you are now: Just my personal opinion).
Maybe its time to find out who wants you, compared to who you want (sometimes appearances can be deceiving, don't you know from your nyc/boston bar stories already...:). If you want to get a faculty position in only top 10 colleges, you need to wait till a bunch of theoreticians die in a swimming pool (one does not help, because that job probably will migrate to people who can bring NIH/DoD funding in CS, which is a game worth loosing in my opinion...).
My suggestion (which you did not ask for): find a place that you can enjoy, find a school, which has the right atmosphere...Enjoy life, and do good work ... :)
you need to wait till a bunch of theoreticians die in a swimming pool
Dear Anonymous Coward,
FYI, I find this kind of "humor" rather insulting and uncalled for.
It's true that the death of a professor leaves an empty chair to be filled, but thinking of this as the main process that produces empty chairs is pretty sick.
But my own conclusion was that, for reasons that merited further investigation, I had simply not gotten an interview at the top places, ...
I don't think that this merits any further investigation anymore. If this blog post provides any insight at all into your personality, it says it all. And if you are obtuse enough not to still understand why you didn't get any calls from the "top" places, I am sorry to say that you are not as bright as you give yourself credit for.
Indeed, as you say, UCSD doesn't seem to have its priorities right. They were foolish enough to make you an offer.
One possibility: Maybe the "top universities" do not consider you to be a "top researcher".
That is an obvious statement given how my job search went.
I'm breathing a sigh of relief that you did not end up in my department.
Always glad to make people happy!
Here is a job Announcement that I received from UCSD Today.
(Which will show you why it was better for you, not to get in UCSD)
============================================================
The University of California, San Diego
Director of the UC San Diego Supercomputer Center
The University of California, San Diego, invites applications for the position of Director of the UCSD Supercomputer Center (http://www.sdsc.edu/), a national leader in creating and providing cyberinfrastructure for data-intensive research.
Reporting to the Vice Chancellor for Research, the director will hold a full-time administrative position as well as a tenured professorial appointment for which a record of scholarly distinction and teaching are required.
http://research.ucsd.edu/documents/sdscdirjobdescr%200401%20_2_.pdf
Referencing position number 5-223-H, send letters of application, curriculum vitae, and contact information of three referees to:
Office of Research Affairs
Attn: Marianne Generales
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, California 92093-0043
mgenerales@ucsd.edu
============================================================
Clearly you can tell I am not at UCSD, and don't want to be there.
Now: If you click on the PDF file, Scroll to Page 2, Qualifications 1 for the jo
b, the first qualification required for the job is : Tenured UCSD Faculty in an
appropriate discipline.
You call that a "top" place? I call that politics! Young researchers like you do not deserve a place like that.
We are scientists, not athletes!
1) Are you serious? :D
2) "But as I've often said, I am much less arrogant than I may come across." Sorry, mate, but arrogance is in major part about how you come across, how you treat other people and talk about them. If you behave arrogantly, you *are* arrogant, no matter how bleeding-heart softie you actually feel inside.
3) I suggest you write a nice thank you note.
"I've not seen many people as strong as you in Computer Science, especially at your age. UCSD does not deserve you (and I am utterly sure that if you had gone to UCSD, you would have been even more bitter after 5 years than you are now: Just my personal opinion)."
Who are the nincompoops who brought a place with so much potential to its knees? Reminds me of what Bush did to US. But the bigger question is why were the Obamas of UCSD hibernating?
Re who has been bringing UCSD (and the rest of the UC system) to its knees: see e.g. http://lucatrevisan.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/save-uc/
I just had a Romanian explain the joke to me. Very funny.
Clearly you can tell I am not at UCSD, and don't want to be there.
Now: If you click on the PDF file, Scroll to Page 2, Qualifications 1 for the job, the first qualification required for the job is : Tenured UCSD Faculty in an
appropriate discipline.
You call that a "top" place? I call that politics! Young researchers like you do not deserve a place like that.
No, it's the opposite of politics. It means you can't use this administrative position as a backdoor into a faculty position at UCSD. At some less distinguished schools, this is exactly what happens.
It's really not much of an obstacle to great candidates from outside UCSD. If you can find a department willing to make a senior offer, I'm sure you can be considered for the directorship. If you can't attract such an offer, then it's no great loss to UCSD if they don't consider you.
One possibility: Maybe the "top universities" do not consider you to be a "top researcher".
That is an obvious statement given how my job search went.
Actually the obvious statement is that the top universities did not consider Mihai a top professor candidate. There is more to being a professor than research. Arrogance is easier to tolerate in a researcher than a professor.
Question for Mihai: Would you have gone to ucsd for sure if you had gotten one of two concurrent offers? If not, what do you think the chances of your accepting would have been?
Sorry mate, you need to work on your attitude. This post doesn't help your reputation.
What annoy some people about this post is this: they don't accept anyone questioning the current political "equilibrium" in academy.
They think that faculty members and only faculty members can have opinions on candidates, and only these senior people can decide who is "good", who is entitled to an ACM thesis award, and so on.
Now, Mihai threatens their power. He is not afraid to say that decision X is wrong, or that the thesis of Y is not as good as his, or that this candidate made an impact not because of him being an outstanding scientist, rather because he rides some popular wave.
At this point, the argument of Mihai's opponents collapses on its face: they claim it's inappropriate for him to publicly judge other works. But they cannot give a sound justification why, on the same time, it's OK for senior hiring committee members, or some prize committee to publicly do exactly the same!
If a committee grants a prize to Y's thesis, it's a public announcement that Y's thesis is better in some aspects than that of X,Z,...
"At this point, the argument of Mihai's opponents collapses on its face: they claim it's inappropriate for him to publicly judge other works."
That's a ridiculous argument. The point here is of Mihai judging his OWN work, and comparing that to others. No one has a problem with Mihai commenting on other people's work in general, without framing it against his own.
No one has a problem with Mihai commenting on other people's work in general, without framing it against his own.
I disagree. I think people are upset about him "daring" to publicly criticize decisions of the TCS "establishment".
The fact that he compares his own work against others actually makes his statements
less disturbing -- because they can be interpreted as expressing personal feelings.
If, on the other hand, he would have said that X and Y do not deserve this and that, without referring
to himself, people would be even more upset.
See for instance this comment:
"People are upset about Mihai putting down Costis and Vinod's research
as less deserving of the awards that they have received."
Now, this complaint is plainly wrong: the committee deciding to give X the prize and not to Y,
makes a public announcement that X is better than Y, in some sense, hence
"putting down Y as less deserving than X".
This is obvious. The point is that people accept this as a norm (which might be OK).
But they refuse to accept it when Mihai is doing the same thing, because it is not the norm.
Mihai is the public face of the resentment some of the sub-communities have towards each other.
It is never OK for a committee to give an award to a member of the committee. Committees judge the work of others.
This is called conflict of interest.
Mihai evaluates the quality of his own work and places is above the work of others. And is frustrated and surprised that other people cannot understand how much better his work is. And given the obvious conflict of interest and his own potential bias when evaluating his own work, nobody takes this complaint seriously.
I commend you on being so upfront about what you think, though in life it may backfire in the long run. It is certainly good to speak what you believe. At any rate, others at MIT would also be feeling the somewhat similar if they weren't nominated, though they didn't decide to go public with it. Ponder this from my language - "Daane daane pe likha hai khaane waale ka naam".
Translated this means, every grain of rice has the name of the person who is going to eat it.
The objective of the post seems to present, in a funny manner, what Mihai thinks of these awards when he is not judged the way he strongly thought about himself. At the same time, there is a lot of grief/bitterness in his statements such as "send the certificate to North Pole...".
While it is okay to hold the opinion (and even express it in public) that your work/thesis was better, it is not okay to do so in a manner that insults other people. The way this post is written, I find it really upsetting... I am wondering what Vinod might be thinking... may be "what did I do?"
I also feel bad people pouching on Mihai for the post. He's just expressing how he feels, and that should be okay. But may be the point is that express yourself but if you insult people regularly, you're sure going to get it back.
And what's wrong with this rigrig guy... "Anonymous Coward" ha ha... I am also one of'em now... shout brave boy.
How often do you complain and ridicule yourself when you get an award/are-judeged-the-best but you realize that others actually did a better job than yours/you?
Mihai's post reads like a Kanye West moment.
The Kanye West connection was spot on.
"Yo Costis and Vinod, I'm really happy for you, and imma let you finish, but I had one of the best theses of all time! OF ALL TIME!"
Dear Anonymous Coward,
Failure to understand jokes may stem from your unuse of usenet and slashdot. Here's a quote from a dear friend of mine: "An 'anonymous coward' is someone too cowardly to post their real name next to what they write. -- AnonymousCoward". Also "Actually, AnonymousCoward used to be a specific user on SlashDot [...] I'm not the original SlashDot AnonymousCoward, but I haven't seen anyone other than me post here using that name. --AnonymousCoward"
Obviously, I'm following my own advice and I explain jokes. Doesn't feel quite right so now I see why Mihai refused to answer. (Not that I expected him to :p)
In any case, I find it insulting that you misspelt my login in a comment where you complain of people doing too much insulting.
(Hmm, should I explain why I wrote 'misspelt', or he'll get it? Tough question.)
Now seriously, "anonymous coward" is an expression designed to encourage but not require people to sign their comments. Since it is common place to address someone using this expression (and it is even done automatically on SlashDot) no one takes offense.
The reason? Anonymity is useful in some situations (for example, there are a few really nice anonymous comments here for which the reason of not signing is clear) but it is often used by flamers (and there are plenty of examples of this kind in this thread too).
Mihai, I always find your opinions to be refreshing.
I selfishly hope that the disgusting responses here won't make you stop publishing your perspective on things. But given the shocking comment that a hiring committee would pass on you due, in part, to the blog (like that justifies erasing all your accomplishments), maybe that would be the "wise" thing to do.
I don't think the point was that a hiring committee passed because of his blog. It was that they passed due to his personality and reputation (which were confirmed in part by the blog). No one, in industry or academia, hires someone purely on the basis of their accomplishments -- they're looking for someone who can contribute to the company or department. A lone prima donna may do amazing things, but if you're looking for someone who can improve the group dynamics and reputation, it often makes sense to prefer the candidate who will inspire enthusiasm and collaborations in those around them. The last school I was at had a professor who has done amazing breakthrough research, but he's impossible to work with and never graduates any students. It's prestigious for the department that his name is associated with them, but as far as the pragmatic strength of the department he contributes almost nothing.
The attitude of the commenters defending this post seems to be "Well you can do great things on your own so screw everyone else." But if you place so little value on working well with others, it's only rational for them to be more hesitant to work with you...
Mihai, I think you are the person who can change the environment, why don't just go and try? Often in science, the one who got nobel prize opened a new era, but before this, nobody care about his/her research. when the committee hired this person, they didn't expect him to be the very "right" person in their strategy.
To the people who justify Mihai, realize that he is not simply passing a judgment on someone's work, he is publicly accusing the MIT committee of dishonesty, saying that they were led by politics rather than merit. This is a fairly serious accusation. It is one thing to say this to a friend, in order to ease your own disappointment. It is quite another thing to declare it to the world. Technically, it is slander, since (1) it is a public announcement, and (2) it undermines the credibility of several people -- the winner and the committee -- on no basis other than a subjective, self-serving opinion. The fact that there are commenters who actually _applaud_ this kind of attitude only goes to show how petty and bitchy academia can be.
Oh my god, somebody said MIT is not perfect!
I'm an MIT grad, and while I don't think Mihai's statement was said in an appropriate way, I think it's pretty obvious that the dissertation award at MIT usually has some political motivations.
UCSD had to throw a chance at hiring you since if they didn't hire anybody this year, they could lose their chance of hiring anybody at their department. That does not mean that your letter made them make an offer to you.
wow, interesting read (+comments) recommended to me by google reader
first of all, I got the joke :-), you can send them next time your regards+ "coffee and buns" (Finnish interpretation on their end would be welcome)
second, I'm amazed by the number of cowards.
third, newsflash for all the library rats: life is all but politics (interesting view from the other gender: "most of the tcs community is bunch of snobs". thanks God a managed to get out of university on time, nowadays is somewhat easier to understand PhDs as-a-whole)
and given the above point, @Mihai you might need at some point to go into "politics" (=be humble and focus a bit on the 'ends'), especially when your research starts to lose steam (which will do someday)
but the lion is young once, if you don't fight your fight now, then when? I guess the latin blood still has a saying :-)
"it is not sufficient to do a (great) job, you have to sell it." (from Hammings's talk via @Warren, some nice tidbits, but otherwise quite a plain read) Indeed, you work so much on the next big thing and the others are so busy with themselves that they don't even notice it.
Lots of ideas are stolen and re-branded (=sold better) over time.
good luck! (yes, you need the luck to come your way and bring the nuts no one is able to crack, but you :-)
Post a Comment