Initial post: November 16, 2019
A vibrant, healthy intellectual ecosystem is one that is diverse in all aspects. Of course, there are the important ones concerning race, gender, sexual orientation, nation of origin, age, etc. But we also need diverse ideas and research styles: People who chase leaderboards and rapidly answer the obvious questions. People who work on really difficult problems and aren't afraid to fail. People who question the status quo and why we do things a certain way. We need people with different risk/reward profiles, different time horizons, etc.
In the late 1990s to early 2000s, Apple had a brilliant advertising campaign called Think Different. The most memorable commercial from that campaign ended with the punch line, "... because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do". (Here's Steve Jobs introducing the commercial.) We absolutely need people in the world like this [1].
I have tremendous respect for people who take large intellectual risks, who pursue research programs that have no near-term chance of success.
Unfortunately, respect is often not reciprocated for my incremental, nose-to-the-grindstone, leaderboard-chasing, perspiration-over-inspiration style of research. For rhetorical convenience, I'll just refer to this style as "leaderboard chasing".
Leaderboard chasing is frequently met with derision and condescension as "mere engineering" and "even a waste of time". I understand not everyone wants to do it; I promote it but I'm not forcing anyone to do it. Certainly not my students. I have students who leaderboard chase, have lots of fun, and absolutely love it. It revs up their competitive spirit, challenges them to think creatively (because everyone has BERT, to win you need more than BERT), and teaches them to execute efficiently. For certain students, this is exactly what they want to do. For other students, this isn't their cup of tea, and so I work with them on other problems.
If my students don't want to chase leaderboards, they don't. I didn't when I was a graduate student. Against the crashing wave of "statistical NLP", I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation (in 2004) on theoretical linguistics, "Event Structure and the Encoding of Arguments: The Syntax of the Mandarin and English Verb Phrase". Let me give you a sample of things that my students have worked on in recent years: One's built an analytical relational database in JavaScript. A couple of years ago I collaborated with a student and a number of colleagues on imagining what it would be like to build a search engine on Mars, where the primary challenge is roundtrip speed-of-light signal propagation delays. I collaborate with a historian and a librarian on a project to analyze web archives. I'm currently working with students on data-driven models for streamflow (i.e., flood) prediction, in the broader context of climate change mitigation. I'll let you judge if these projects count as more than "leaderboard chasing".
If you don't want to chase leaderboards, don't. But do you really have to belittle those who do? I don't care if you insult me. I'm a senior faculty, I can defend myself. But insulting graduate students for their choices of what they want to work on is not acceptable. There is a student out there whose first ACL paper was primarily leaderboard chasing; in fact, her point of pride was reaching number one on a popular, competitive leaderboard using a small but clever incremental tweak on a well-known architecture. And now you've just sneer at her accomplishment.
All I'm asking is: don't judge. Especially since those who attack me on social media make the (implied) assumption that I run an authoritarian group with a toxic monoculture. Whether in fact, I do, you'll have to ask my students. But put away your prejudicial condescension before you've had a chance to get to know me (or my students) personally.
What infuriates me is that the people who express this holier-than-thou attitude are often the same people who claim that they value diversity and inclusion.
Do you know what makes it even worse? It's that this attitude is frequently directed at Chinese students, with the implied undertone of "oh, you're doing this because you lack creativity." This is, at the very least, a microagression, and, at the worst, outright racism.
It is usually at this point that I am accused of appropriating the language of diversity and inclusion. The response is often something like, "oh, those poor Chinese students, they're already X of our university's Ph.D. program" or "yea, sure, they need so much help". To which I say, your ignorance is embarrassing. Try reading this Wikipedia article as an entry point into the well-researched academic literature about so-called "model minorities"; the very term was invented by the white power structures half a century ago as a divisive tool of oppression. I don't deny that certain groups are more marginalized than others. But to start comparing who's more marginalized is counterproductive to the goal that we want diversity and inclusion for all.
I've been accused of, paraphrasing only slightly, running an authoritarian group with a toxic monoculture. Let's even say that's partially true (read on...).
Consider this scenario: You're an ambitious Chinese undergraduate student who's already risen to the top in the gaokao. Here's the deal: I get you that dream job at Google, Facebook, etc. in the Bay Area, Seattle, etc. and the green card that comes with it [2]. For that, "all" you need to do is to "pay your dues" and grind it out for a few years, contribute as a cog in the machine that is my lab. Yes, you'll likely be miserable. Yes, you won't have work/life balance. Yes, I will make you slave away chasing leaderboards, pumping out *ACL papers. But, you'll get that Ph.D. and I'll deliver on my promise to get you that dream job. You can evaluate based on my previous students whether I can indeed deliver. With a bit of hubris, let's say that I can, with reasonably high probability. So, "authoritarian" and "monoculture"? Guilty as charged.
Nevertheless, do you take the deal? Even if you don't, can you understand why many would? As long as students know the terms coming in, why wouldn't you respect their choice?
Now, if all North American research groups operated this way, I would be concerned. But that's exactly the point of this post: we need a bit of everything for a vibrant intellectual ecosystem. Now, I understand that it might be easy for an authoritarian group to veer into clearly unethical behavior (e.g., data falsification). That's a bright red line and there should be zero tolerance for such behavior.
These aside: What's your problem with people who are simply aspiring to "a better life" via a path that you might not necessarily take? Maybe you shouldn't cast stones from your position of privilege?
[1] My admonition against hubris still stands, as the punch line could easily as well end "... because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, often really are". In the same vein, Carl Sagan once said, "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
[2] Yes, I realize that I'm in Canada right now and so talking about green cards and SV isn't particularly apt. It's all hypothetical anyway.
I want to thank the following people who have made substantial, constructive comments to this piece: Chris Brew (for now). Feedback, however, does not imply endorsement.