Wait so she took to heart the criticism levied against her and improved herself? What’s the problem? She wasn’t good enough, she worked hard, did better and became good enough.
The context is literally in the article. The research she is literally winning a NOBEL PRIZE for was not deemed good enough for UPenn, and she was not reinstated to tenure track.
It’s not some “kumbayah I need to work harder” bullshit you see on corporate sales teams. How the fuck does one exactly “work harder” to improve their “personal” mRNA sequencing methods?
Really?
Are we just critiquing news sources and their poor headline or can we actually comment about the subject?
This person succeeded in spite of being told by an Ivy League school that she wasn’t faculty material. Considering the male professor wasn’t discouraged, I’m guessing it’s just simple sexism.
Seriously, I thought this would spur some sort of discussion of “perceived value” in prestige academia, but instead it’s just low effort comments saying “slammed”.
We can agree, at least, that they were indeed “slammed”, with, dare I say it, a thunderous “boom”.
I wish that good people didn’t have to struggle against the bad people that find their way to power, even in our cherished institutions. But… that’s just humans, I suppose. The corrupt and cruel will always seek power while the good ones won’t.
The article heavily implies that she was demoted because of the research she did. Is that the case? They said she “wasn’t of faculty quality” and nothing more. According to this, she couldn’t geg funding for years until the university demoted her.
That article was trash. Literally just a bunch of tweets with very little context.
Add comment