OK, forwarded this to my PI... will let you know tomorrow. :D
Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
131–140 of 304 posts
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#132The guys on the article were walking about on huge familial estates and had servants. I on the other hand have a mortgage to pay. Out of the box creative thinking as the result of leisure is great. Sometimes it pays off. More often it doesn't. Sadly most of us don't have the luxury of finding out. At least for now.
I spent my early 20s working 2 shifts a week at a bar. It doesn't cost much to buy yourself the time and headspace needed to get from 0 to 1 as a creative worker. It was a rich life. It still is. All that's changed is that I travel more. Priorities, man.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#133And then on the flipside there is Musk, Jobs, Gates and countless others who work(ed) all the time. All I'm saying is I see a lot of emulation-of-success articles posted here...
Those people are not scientists. Lookup Musk on Wikipedia and you'll find that he has a BSc. only, and he started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business endeavors. Jobs dropped out of University. And Gates is probably closest to a scientist, although I'm not aware of any research by him.
> And Gates is probably closest to a scientist, although I'm not aware of any research by him.
Gates has one published paper: Gates, William H. and Christos H. Papadimitriou. “Bounds for sorting by prefix reversal.” Discrete Mathematics 27 (1979): 47-57.
PDF: https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/papers/GP79.pdf
Pancake sorting seems to attract Harvard people who decide to forego their planned science careers for other fields. It got Gates with normal pancake sorting, then 18 years David S. Cohen did burnt pancake sorting, before leaving science to change his name to David X. Cohen and write for The Simpsons and later Futurama:
Cohen, David S.; Blum, Manuel (1995). "On the problem of sorting burnt pancakes". Discrete Applied Mathematics. 61 (2): 105–20
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#134There was a poll on HN a couple of years ago that asked how many productive hours each reader had in a given day, and if I remember correctly there was a large plurality that picked 4-6 and a rather large group that picked 2-4. Which seems to square fairly well with my personal experience and that of the scientists in the piece. I often wonder how much actual work people who spend 80 hours in the office are actually…
Are you referring to this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7900741
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#135And then on the flipside there is Musk, Jobs, Gates and countless others who work(ed) all the time. All I'm saying is I see a lot of emulation-of-success articles posted here...
Scientists and Entrepreneurs are two very different kinds of people. Creative thinkers vs Executers.
Most scientists are NOT creative thinkers. They just extend what came before them. People like Einstein is the exception but people seem to think all scientists are like him and draw wrong conclusions.
On the other hand, if you think entrepreneurs are just "executers" and not "creative thinkers" you are completely wrong. Most entrepreneurs are forced to think creatively every single day (otherwise they won't survive). Scientists don't need to because they have a stable job. If you're a scientist, some ambitious people want to become an Einstein but 99% of the population don't ever believe they can become one and just do mediocre research all their life. Unlike entrepreneurs where mediocre work will mean their business will fail and their family will starve, mediocre scientists can survive just fine, because they're paid by the research organization or the university they belong to.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that students are almost always graded on how well they do on assignments/exams rather than how long they studied, your strong-man competition analogy doesn't make much sense.
The assignments are often (even typically) crafted to be straightforward but require significant amounts of time to complete, and often graded more for diligence than understanding. Exams are sometimes more about flattering the grader or following a fixed procedure than developing an interesting argument and defending it well or solving novel difficult problems. Add course attendance and participation on top, and wha…
This doesn't hold in my experience with an engineering education.
The objective is for students to gain and demonstrate basic competence in fundamental concepts of their field, and straightforward answers to straightforward questions suffice. There's not a lot of room here for novel arguments, and the objective is not to solve novel problems; that comes later.
This is time consuming because, for most of us, learning a new concept and applying it takes some time. It's not a sinister plot by the system to waste our time.
Regarding mentoring students to work on real research problems: yes, this doesn't scale to huge number of undergrads. But most undergrads don't yet have the drive or the fundamental knowledge required to tackle real research questions. That said, if a student does well in a class and shows interest, a lot of professors will give an undergrad a chance to work with their research lab.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't most medical schools just pass/fail these days? They don't actually give grades or rank students, do they?
I can't speak for all medical schools, but at my ex's school they have Honors/High Pass/Pass/Low Pass/Fail; so basically (ABCDF). Other than being required to get at least Pass in order to remain in good academic standing, I'm not certain what effect these grades have.
As I understand it (from friends in med school), the grades in the pre-clinical classes are important as they affect the Dean's letter, the primary letter of recommendation for residency applications.
However, the grades from the time they spend in the clinic are much more important than the pre-clinical coursework.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those people are not scientists. Lookup Musk on Wikipedia and you'll find that he has a BSc. only, and he started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business endeavors. Jobs dropped out of University. And Gates is probably closest to a scientist, although I'm not aware of any research by him.
>> he started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business endeavors Having PhD or working on it is not a prerequisite for being a scientist. Musk is not in academics, but he is a CTO of a SpaceX, so he is in charge of scientific and technological issues within an aerospace company. He does more applied science than vast majority of scientists that I can think of. Edit: Typo
>He does more applied science than vast majority of scientists that I can think of.
Does he do it or does he manage a company and people who do it?
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not why anyone gets a PhD. The training is designed to teach you research. Unlike any other schooling, the degree has little class work. The PhD is essentially an apprenticeship to a practicing scientist.
I would be really interested in someone elaborating on this idea "phd is an apprenticeship for researchers". Several people have insisted that I should go into a phd program, but when I looked into it I saw a lot of: learn how to do grant applications, publish this non-reproducible and barely significant result just so you have something published, work on a phd adviser's bad idea so he can take the credit, etc. If y…
Much more important than the idea is the process you learn how to vet and research the idea. That is the 'support'. Now I can independently expand on my own ideas, and reject unpromising ones. Some are born with this skill, but many who think they have it... don't.
A PhD isn't really about doing something useful, although that is typically a result. It's learning how to explore an idea and expand upon it.
Your advisor does not lead you as much as guide you. Hence the name.
While the dangers you mentioned are absolutely a threat, much of that can be mitigated by choosing a good advisor. Personally I think taking a tenured, well established prof is a better bet, because they aren't as worried about their own career advancement. But everyones mileage varies.
To expand on my original idea: imagine being given an opportunity to work closely with a recognized expert in your field. For years he will meet with you, advise you and honestly try to help you also become a world authority on this subject. Afterwards, he will always support your career and care for your future. That's what I have, and while I certainly feel fortunate, I would not call my situation atypical.
I'm happy to provide more info.
Re: Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
#140Roger Bannister found time to break the 4 minute mile while in med school!