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

71–80 of 167 posts

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#71

Post by msie »

lvs wrote: post #55

i don't totally disagree with the article, but it's probably worth pointing out that this guy is apparently a "proud homophobe." great. one might question his judgement after reading this drivel. http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/05/washington... http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/defense.html

Everyone wants to dismiss this as an ad-hominem attack but it's still a valuable datapoint. At best maybe it would make one more skeptical of the arguments put forward by katz because I think even the brightest person can be easily persuaded by a written piece or incorporate its "facts" into their beliefs and not pursue further scrutiny of it.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#72

Post by VLM »

thevardanian wrote: post #49
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 progres…

... can only be achieved if basic needs of the scientist are met ...

This has an obvious interesting long term evolutionary effect. If via mandatory poverty and celibacy we force everyone out of academic science who cares about the future, the long term results will be (insert something probably very negative for the future here) Or another way to put it, is if everyone involved has a predisposition for extreme recklessness, maybe its time to close down dangerous areas of research before its too late.

Aside from absolutely everything else mentioned, if you strongly select for recklessness and lack of concern for the future, historically the occasional misguided soul would leap off a building, and in the future you might end up with organic chemists, nuclear physicists, internet-era programmers deciding to take an entire city with them.

So even in the most self centered inhumane analysis of the humans involved, not enforcing a vow of poverty, celibacy, an recklessness on scientists is at the very least a security matter. At least issue food stamps or welfare or something?

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#73

Post by mturmon »

dang wrote: post #68
mturmon wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally right. Polarizing/absolutist proclamations like the OP tend to start noisy, unhelpful discussions on HN. It's even worse when (as here) the OP concerns a general topic where most HN readers have anecdotal evidence, but only anecdotal evidence. This kind of outrageous statement can be kind of fun in a small group, at dinner or a bar, but not here (IMO).

Do you think the discussion in this thread is that bad? I don't—mainly because many people have been commenting from significant relevant experience. The replies to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7763777 , for example, are really good.

No, it's not truly bad, just very anecdotal, and I think we can do better. (But I didn't flag the article.) Also -- the peripheral concerns around this particular writer, who has written on a variety of red-button topics, can make things go downhill fast.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#74

Post by pavanred »

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…

I interviewed recently for a Data Engineer position in Chicago and was surprised when 2 interviewers from the data team introduced themselves as astrophysicists. They reasoned that they weren't happy with the career path in academia and so found a way out.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#75

Post by vacri »

analog31 wrote: post #28
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 physics, in 1993. Everything written in Katz's article was widely known to grad students when I was in school. Through a bit of planning and probably a lot of luck, I went to industry after finishing my degree. (Friend of a friend owned a tech business). One "fact" that is apparent by omission in Katz's article rings true today as well: The complete lack of any consideration of industry employment by a…

Munchausen by Proxy is not something you want to do in science - it's explicitly faking data (child injuries) so you get attention that you desire. It's not causing the problem, but faking the problem. MbP definitely is a very serious problem, but it's not the problem that the parent claims is happening. A better semantic fit for the science world for MbP would be faking data to get grant money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome_by_pro...

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#76

Post by tcheard »

msie wrote: post #71
lvs wrote: post #55

i don't totally disagree with the article, but it's probably worth pointing out that this guy is apparently a "proud homophobe." great. one might question his judgement after reading this drivel. http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/05/washington... http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/defense.html

Everyone wants to dismiss this as an ad-hominem attack but it's still a valuable datapoint. At best maybe it would make one more skeptical of the arguments put forward by katz because I think even the brightest person can be easily persuaded by a written piece or incorporate its "facts" into their beliefs and not pursue further scrutiny of it.

No, people should be skeptical of arguments made for things and pursue further scrutiny of them regardless of the author's views and opinions in other non-relevant fields.

Not that I'm supporting his other radical views but this is an ad-hominem attack by definition and his views on irrelevant subject matter should not affect, in any way, how you interpret his opinion here.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#77

Post by danieltillett »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #70
dnautics wrote: post #64

The only thing missing is that the grants administrators are very often (I can think of two, dear to me counterexamples) people who got into science and couldn't hack it, making for sort of a bureaucratic dunning-kruger effect. I remember meeting DOE bureaucrats coming to visit our site, and being in awe at their complete lack of basic scientific concepts, and thinking, "these idiots probably get paid six figures to…

I am sadly unimpressed by a lot of people who end up managing investment or research funds. I wonder if it is similar to politicians? It takes some specific social skill to get there, but it doesn't mean you are any good in that position when you get it.

This is true of all fields where social skills are critical for the acquisition of the position. The problem is that people with good social skills are also really skilled at avoiding being removed from a position that they can't do - often the only way to get them out is to promote them and hope they don't cause more damage.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#78

Post by gone35 »

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)?

To follow-up IvyMike's earlier comment [1]:

It was indeed very true then, and it is even worse today.

In 1999, there were around 400,000 STEM PhDs in the US, but only 70,000 STEM academic faculty positions available. Today, there are over 800,000 STEM PhDs, but only around 100,000 STEM faculty positions [2].

And the gap will get even worse: in 2013, over 35,000 new STEM PhDs were awarded, but only about 3,000 new STEM faculty positions were open [ibid]. It's just unsustainable.

So, anecdotes aside, this is a very real and very serious structural problem. No matter how 'passionate' or how resourceful they are, with current trends, at least 9 out of 10 current first-year PhD students will invariably not get an academic faculty position when they enter the market. The longer this elephant in the room is ignored, the worse it will be [3].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7763857

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

[3] See also related discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7764289 (where I initially saw the chart from).

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#79

Post by geekam »

mturmon wrote: post #73
dang wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the discussion in this thread is that bad? I don't—mainly because many people have been commenting from significant relevant experience. The replies to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7763777 , for example, are really good.

No, it's not truly bad, just very anecdotal, and I think we can do better. (But I didn't flag the article.) Also -- the peripheral concerns around this particular writer, who has written on a variety of red-button topics, can make things go downhill fast.

OP here. I'd like to say that I did not know about the author's other controversial articles and many of which I find disturbing. I was on a journey to figure out whether PhD (esp. in other fields than your prior ones) makes sense, for myself and while doing so came across this article and HN seemed like a nice place to have a discussion.

My apologies to not have searched HN prior to submitting this, to see if it will be a re-post. However, even if comments were anecdotal, it still helped me understand the gravity of the situation.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#80

Post by danieltillett »

drhodes wrote: post #63
javert wrote: post #30

I was thinking about trying to become a computer science professor. I think I could potentially get more top-quality research done living an impoverished lifestyle and working at something else part time, than I could in academia, where you have to focus on pleasing the "powers that be" (program committees, grant committees, tenure committees).

This reminds of something Feynman said something in "You Must Be Joking..." "When I was at Princeton in the 1940s I could see what happened to those great minds at the Institute for Advanced Study, who had been specially selected for their tremendous brains and were now given this opportunity to sit in this lovely house by the woods there, with no classes to teach, with no obligations whatsoever. These poor bastards…

I think Feynman was just jealous :) When you consider that von Neumann was at IAS and he managed a huge amount of collaboration of vast importance I think it had more to do with the individual than the environment.
Post reply on HN