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

91–100 of 167 posts

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#91

Post by michaelochurch »

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.

Not quite true, but what I have noticed is that, at the graduate-school level, there's a very low correlation between the quality of the program and the students.

If you go to a top-5 PhD program, you'll be surprised by how many of these supposedly "best in the generation" people just aren't that good. Many are, and the talented outnumber the talentless, but you'd expect there to be zero talentless schmucks at the top programs, and it just ain't so. This is where the OP's perception that PhD programs are "full of weak students" probably comes from; the fact that even top PhD programs can't keep the schmucks out. It's not hard, even for a total mediocrity, for a 22-year-old packing socioeconomic advantages, and already coming from an elite college, to appear smart.

Drop down to the #10 or #20 or even #35 department, and the talent distribution isn't much different. The difference, in raw intelligence, between the students isn't that strong. There are some really good students and some terrible ones, at any of them. The change is barely perceptible. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference except by the reputation of their advisors.

If you go in to a top school and expect its students to be the best of the best, you'll be disappointed when only 75-85% of them are halfway intelligent, and you might conclude that the #30 school has no intelligent students. In fact, it has almost as many. There are probably 20-100 times as many people (probably 3-5% of the general population) with the talent for academia as actually put themselves anywhere near contention for the positions.

What we now have, and it's not new, is evidence of a sorting system that doesn't really work. We can't sort talent from well-positioned mediocrity (read: socioeconomic status) before college, we certainly can't do it in college, and we don't do it for graduate school (George W. Bush is a Harvard Business School graduate). At all levels, we do a terrible job. We're actually talent-rich as a society, because we've had the smartest people coming here for generations. We just haven't a clue what to do with it.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#92

Post by abawany »

I hope I don't get too many downvotes: I see people wanting to make a change from academia to technology and I think I may have something for you. If you are interested in working on interesting data problems, Golang, and living in Austin, TX, please message me.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#93

Post by foldr »

bpodgursky wrote: post #51
dydx wrote: post #33

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

Let's please evaluate the current article on its own merits. I'm really tired of the new witch-hunt-as-acceptable mentality on here and the news. It's frustrating reading the comments and seeing it filled with complaints about unrelated articles by the same author.

I don't think it's entirely inappropriate in this case because this kind of article is only of value if the author is basically trustworthy and sane. He's not really reporting facts or making an argument so much as just reporting his own experiences and opinions. That's fine but it does make his personal credibility relevant.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#94

Post by agentultra »

I rather dislike these essays that deter young, intelligent and motivated young people from a career they might otherwise enjoy and be passionate about. There are legitimate problems with the career track as established and outlined in this essay. It is even wise to inform young people of those problems so they know what they're getting into. However it is discouraging to hear from tenured professors that they should give up their passion and dreams and be a lawyer.

I can think of no greater torture, save complete isolation, than eternal boredom.

It's disingenuous to deter the curious on account of your cynicism, is it not?

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#95

Post by amirmc »

philip1209 wrote: post #66

As an alum of the physics department at WUSTL - the author of this piece has quite a negative reputation on campus due to his outspoken beliefs on various political matters. It has led to his removal from many important projects and nearly cost him his tenure Removal from Obama commission during BP oil spill: http://archive.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=202393 One of his other essays, "In Defense of Homophob…

This comment is borderline ad hominem [1]. I say borderline because you don't explicitly use the information you give to counter his views but since you don't actually say anything, that's the impression a reader might take away.

The articles you cite have nothing to do with the author's views on academic careers or the choices people should consider regarding graduate school. Personally, I'd find a discussion of those points more 'on topic' than the author's views on sexuality.

[1] I had to look it up to be sure. " ... a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument" - from wikipedia.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#96

Post by maxerickson »

agentultra wrote: post #94

I rather dislike these essays that deter young, intelligent and motivated young people from a career they might otherwise enjoy and be passionate about. There are legitimate problems with the career track as established and outlined in this essay. It is even wise to inform young people of those problems so they know what they're getting into. However it is discouraging to hear from tenured professors that they should…

I don't think disingenuous fits for what you are saying. In particular, the author seems quite sincere in his belief that the job market for PHDs has lots and lots of candidates and that this creates disadvantages for it as a career path.

I also don't think that young, intelligent, motivated, passionate and curious individuals are especially fragile.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#97

Post by msie »

tcheard wrote: post #76
msie wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree. Ideally we scrutinize everything but we don't. If the guy believed the earth was flat you would take whatever else he said with a grain of salt.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#99

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

amirmc wrote: post #95
philip1209 wrote: post #66

As an alum of the physics department at WUSTL - the author of this piece has quite a negative reputation on campus due to his outspoken beliefs on various political matters. It has led to his removal from many important projects and nearly cost him his tenure Removal from Obama commission during BP oil spill: http://archive.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=202393 One of his other essays, "In Defense of Homophob…

This comment is borderline ad hominem [1]. I say borderline because you don't explicitly use the information you give to counter his views but since you don't actually say anything , that's the impression a reader might take away. The articles you cite have nothing to do with the author's views on academic careers or the choices people should consider regarding graduate school. Personally, I'd find a discussion of th…

I disagree, the original link is to an opinion related to a societal issue, so other opinions by the author on societal issues are relevant.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#100

Post by verroq »

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #99
amirmc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is borderline ad hominem [1]. I say borderline because you don't explicitly use the information you give to counter his views but since you don't actually say anything , that's the impression a reader might take away. The articles you cite have nothing to do with the author's views on academic careers or the choices people should consider regarding graduate school. Personally, I'd find a discussion of th…

I disagree, the original link is to an opinion related to a societal issue, so other opinions by the author on societal issues are relevant.

Yeah you're right. His opinions on the last movie he watched is relevant when he's discussing what he thinks of postdoc positions as professor with tenure.
Post reply on HN