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

41–50 of 167 posts

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#41

Post by kaybe »

RK wrote: post #26
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'm under the impression that it has only gotten worse. Anecdote: A super smart friend of mine from physics grad school finished in 2008 and went on to post-docs at Caltech and Harvard. He was unable to get a tenure track job, primarily because in that 4 year timespan only 1 faculty position opened up in the entire US for his (tiny) field. He now works at Google. In fact I'm not sure that anyone from my cohort is sti…

Do you have a write-up of your answers lying around somewhere? I'd be interested.. (half a year to go on a Master's)

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#43

Post by hatbert »

gcp wrote: post #31
UK-AL wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Demand for faculty positions is pretty stable. Demand for programmers much less so.

> Demand for faculty positions is pretty stable.

Well, that's certainly one way of putting it. You could also say, "Academia has the potential to absorb about 10% of PhDs produced annually." That's fine for CS, where most people want to go into industry anyway and industry understands the product. Not so much for, say, physics, where more PhDs would rather stay in academia and you have to explain very quickly why someone should hire a PhD physicist before they slam the door in your face.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#44

Post by tehf0x »

dydx wrote: post #33

This guy also wrote an essay titled "In Defense of Homophobia": http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/defense.html

Well that was enough crazy for today. I'm always impressed by the logical flaws someone can have when they are emotionally passionate about something. I'm pretty sure that his final analogy between homosexuality and belonging to the klu klux klan was definitely worth putting in post-scriptum to absolutely confirm he hasn't thought any of this out.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#45

Post by [deleted] »

nagrom wrote: post #13
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 discussio…

[deleted]

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#46

Post by ben1040 »

dydx wrote: post #33

This guy also wrote an essay titled "In Defense of Homophobia": http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/defense.html

Of note is that this 1999 essay came back around in 2010 when Katz was tapped by the DoE for a scientific task force evaluating options for the Deepwater Horizon cleanup.

He was removed from the group in fairly short order, after people found this essay and put the heat on him for it.

Shortly afterwards, Katz' son came out to his father.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/son-of-homophobic-f...

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#47

Post by Balgair »

javert wrote: post #27
Balgair wrote: post #5

" I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs." and "The result is that the best young people, who should go into science, sensibly refuse to do so, and the graduate schools are filled with weak American students and with foreigners lured by the American student visa." Well, I'm sure glad I don't work with this professor. Yeesh! Talk about confirmation bias.

I don't think it's fair to assert a confirmation bias. The first quote: That is probably a factually true quote. He did not say, "Therefore, more people's lives are ruined by physics than drugs." The second quote is also probably factually true, and jives with my experience in graduate school. Of course, many of the foreigners are also weak, but he leaves that out.

Ok, I used my list of logical errors incorrectly, my bad.

Still, yes, for him, maybe he does in fact know more 'failed' physicists than junkies. However, there are many many many more junkies with much much worse lives than almost all PhDs.

I'm going into neurosci this fall, so I don't know yet personally. However, the attitude expressed in that sentence is so very toxic. If that's what the professor publishes, then I'd never want to hear what he gossips to the other professors. Maybe, just maybe, the professor is a jerk. And maybe, just maybe, the only people that are left near him are the ones not smart enough to avoid him in the first place. I don't remember what bias that is.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#48

Post by ido »

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.

Is that new though? I remember loads of people signing up to CS courses (both university and vocational, as well as self taught) during the 1st dot com boom in the late 90s. In my native Israel that was particularly extreme, everyone was trying to get into "computers".

And yet 15 years later we still have much higher supply of work than workers when it comes to experienced talented programmers.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#49

Post by thevardanian »

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.

Programming is a profession that's become a part of society. It function as electricity does, in that without electricity modern civilization wouldn't exist.

Science is more of an investment that is important to the future of society, but can only be achieved if basic needs of a society are met. It's like other profession such as math, art, or philosophy in that it makes the society itself more flavorful, and progressive.

Post reply on HN