Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

wuphys.wustl.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 167 posts

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#11

Post by IvyMike »

geekam wrote: post #2

Would like to know * how true this is, today? * Since I already have an alternative career path (computer science, programmer) can I now pursue my passion of science by going to grad school (physics)?

If anything, the trends outlined in this article have continued in the last 15 years, so it's truer now that it was then. The disparity between PhDs vs. faculty positions is illustrated in this graph:

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/fig_tab/nbt.2706_F...

(The last time this was posted here everyone complained about how the annual and cumulative scales are different and make the graph hard to read, so caveat emptor.)

Physics could be an outlier, as there is a non-academic career path for certain specialities. But these tend to be the more engineer-like specializations. If your passion is theoretical physics, your job prospects are probably limited to searching for academic roles, and that's a tough place to be these days.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#12

Post by Thriptic »

geekam wrote: post #2

Would like to know * how true this is, today? * Since I already have an alternative career path (computer science, programmer) can I now pursue my passion of science by going to grad school (physics)?

I can only speak for the biological sciences (I am a grad student in bioengineering), but from my perspective this is 100% accurate.

My PI got his own lab and his first big grant (R01) in his late 20s. My father did the same at 28. In the lab I am currently in, I have personally witnessed 3 brilliant, qualified, 40 year old post-docs with fellow to faculty transition grants be turned down for assistant professorships. If you go into academic science with the idea that you will end up as tenured professor, then you are naive.

As a tenured professor, and even as a new PI, you will not perform much, if any science. You will spend your time writing grants, approaching industry for funding (sponsored research, gifts etc), writing and reviewing papers and editorials, managing grad students, complying with regulations, teaching classes, serving on useless committees etc). There is also stiffer competition for grants every year, making it extremely difficult to stay funded. Our lab does alright because we are heavily industry funded, but individual groups in our lab have suffered.

I plan to either go into industry, work for a startup, or start something with some colleagues.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#13

Post by nagrom »

geekam wrote: post #2

Would like to know * how true this is, today? * Since I already have an alternative career path (computer science, programmer) can I now pursue my passion of science by going to grad school (physics)?

I got a PhD in particle physics 6 years ago. I did my first postdoc and enjoyed it - I got to travel, and work on relatively interesting things occasionally. Every year since then it's got worse, to the point where I've given up on getting a permanent job and am actively looking elsewhere. If I was offered an tenured academic post tomorrow, I would decline.

The other thing that is generally left out of this discussion is that academic excellence does not matter for a permanent job. There's no politics as vicious as academic politics (since so little is at stake), and who your supervisor is for your PhD matters more than how clever you are. If your achievements are first-rate, no-one up the chain will really understand them, and you'll be derided. If what you do is unoriginal, but suits the political landscape fame and riches (60 hour weeks and a starting salary of $75k) may become yours after you've moved city, country or continent a few times.

That is scale-independent. If you have tenure, funding committees become the new tenure or interview committees. Collaboration boards and conference boards (which confer status and prestige and therefore opportunity) work who likes whom - not on competency.

All the best people (technically and personally) I met during my PhD have left the field and I'm hoping to join them soon...I'm just slightly ashamed of myself for staying in the field this long.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#15

Post by IvyMike »

yaketysax wrote: post #8

"Leave graduate school to people from India and China, for whom the prospects at home are even worse." Even worse in terms of what?

It's been 15 years since this article was originally written, which doesn't seem like a long time.

But China's GDP was $1T in 1999, and was $9T in 2013. I confess near-absolute ignorance but the job prospects for advanced degrees in China probably have gotten at least a little better in that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_GDP_of_the_People's...

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#16

Post by swuecho »

IvyMike wrote: post #15
yaketysax wrote: post #8

"Leave graduate school to people from India and China, for whom the prospects at home are even worse." Even worse in terms of what?

It's been 15 years since this article was originally written, which doesn't seem like a long time. But China's GDP was $1T in 1999, and was $9T in 2013. I confess near-absolute ignorance but the job prospects for advanced degrees in China probably have gotten at least a little better in that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_GDP_of_the_People's...

the problem is far more people getting a advanced degree.

In 1999, if you hold a Phd degree from US, it is easy to find a faculty position in China. However, Even you hold a PhD degree from Top Univ in US today, you can hardly find a faculty position in China. You have to do postdoc to publish more papers in top journal.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#18

Post by geekam »

swuecho wrote: post #16
IvyMike wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been 15 years since this article was originally written, which doesn't seem like a long time. But China's GDP was $1T in 1999, and was $9T in 2013. I confess near-absolute ignorance but the job prospects for advanced degrees in China probably have gotten at least a little better in that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_GDP_of_the_People's...

the problem is far more people getting a advanced degree. In 1999, if you hold a Phd degree from US, it is easy to find a faculty position in China. However, Even you hold a PhD degree from Top Univ in US today, you can hardly find a faculty position in China. You have to do postdoc to publish more papers in top journal.

I agree with you. I see the same pattern with Indian science landscape. Unless you have nice and strong connections, landing an academic position in India is tough too, even with a PhD from some ace university in the US.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#19

Post by marcosdumay »

msvan wrote: post #6

I wonder if/when this will happen to programmers. I keep thinking that the job market for programmers will be radically different in ten years, what with the enormous amount of people "learning to code" these days. He did however suggest people to become programmers in 1999, and if you followed his advice then, you would probably still be quite happy with that decision today.

It's a completely different situation. Programming leads to some serious concentrated rewards, while science leads only to dispersed rewards. As a result, there are plenty of people wanting to invest in programming, but mostly governments want to touch sciences.

That of course does not mean that the job market for programmers will always be good, only that when it stops being, it will be for very different reasons.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#20

Post by UK-AL »

marcosdumay wrote: post #19
msvan wrote: post #6

I wonder if/when this will happen to programmers. I keep thinking that the job market for programmers will be radically different in ten years, what with the enormous amount of people "learning to code" these days. He did however suggest people to become programmers in 1999, and if you followed his advice then, you would probably still be quite happy with that decision today.

It's a completely different situation. Programming leads to some serious concentrated rewards, while science leads only to dispersed rewards. As a result, there are plenty of people wanting to invest in programming, but mostly governments want to touch sciences. That of course does not mean that the job market for programmers will always be good, only that when it stops being, it will be for very different reasons.

I'm guessing massive oversupply will be the reason, as it is here.
Post reply on HN