Live data from Hacker News

Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

wuphys.wustl.edu

131–140 of 167 posts

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though I find his political beliefs repulsive, and am sure that his beliefs have put him afoul of the academic groupthink (which leaves me in a weird place, because I dislike his beliefs but also dislike the leftist conformity being brandished against him and breaking his career) I don't think any of this stuff is relevant. Standing alone, everything he says in this essay is correct and insightful. So I'd rather…

Did you actually read what he wrote? The views he expressed are much closer to what you so derisively call "leftist conformity" than his titles would seem to indicate.

Huh? Modern "Leftist conformity" involves placing homosexuality and heterosexuality in a scientifically and sociologically spurious equivalence. His piece on homosexuality is extremely far from leftist conformity.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#132
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What field are you working in? I am a prospective physics graduate student, and I want to do physics research as a career. However, I am uninterested in going into academia after attaining my PhD, and I am also financially independent due to inheritance.

I develop genomics software - my company is in my profile. If you are financially independent then you should look at becoming an adjunct professor as a long term goal. If you don't cost the university any money and you generate papers and grants then you will not have too much trouble finding a position. You should use this freedom to work on areas that other less fortunate scientist can't like project that may not…

Hm this is an interesting thought but I'm having trouble parsing it. Isn't there a contradiction there? If you generate grants and papers, you can find a job, but then you should tackle stuff that doesn't produce any results for awhile and doesn't get grants?

Long term I am curious about going back to academia, and finances aren't a big issue. But being forced to do short term work is a dealbreaker. I have done some original research outside of academia (mostly in the form of source code, some semi-published), and I'm curious about thoughts on how to "work the system".

EDIT: I looked at what an adjunct professor actually is, and it sounds sorta horrible? You don't even get benefits? I assumed low pay, but at least with benefits, but apparently that's not the case. What do you get out of it, other than a title? Access to facilities? Since I am in software I don't really need facilities....

Or do you get students to do work for your pet project? I imagine the good ones would want to work for a "real" professor.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#133
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I develop genomics software - my company is in my profile. If you are financially independent then you should look at becoming an adjunct professor as a long term goal. If you don't cost the university any money and you generate papers and grants then you will not have too much trouble finding a position. You should use this freedom to work on areas that other less fortunate scientist can't like project that may not…

Hm this is an interesting thought but I'm having trouble parsing it. Isn't there a contradiction there? If you generate grants and papers, you can find a job, but then you should tackle stuff that doesn't produce any results for awhile and doesn't get grants? Long term I am curious about going back to academia, and finances aren't a big issue. But being forced to do short term work is a dealbreaker. I have done some…

If only generating papers and getting grants made it easy to get a job in science - most of the lament in this story is that even being a great and productive scientist won't get you a job these days.

In regards what you get out adjunct professorship is access to the academic environment, things like lab space, shared equipment, intelligent people to talk to (students and postdocs mostly). Sure you aren't paid, but if you are independently wealthy it is not an issue.

Yes students will work with and adjunct professor - actual in some cases it is better as the adjunct actually has more time to train student.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#134
Given that cheap and disposable trainees — PhD students and postdocs — fuel the entire scientific research enterprise, it is not surprising that few inside the system seem interested in change. A system complicit in this sort of exploitation is at best indifferent and at worst cruel.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110302/full/471007a.html

Potential missing staff in some areas is a separate issue, and educational programmes are not designed to make up for it. On-the-job learning and training are not separated but dynamically linked together, benefiting to both parties. In my three years of operation, I have unfortunately witnessed cases where CERN duties and educational training became contradictory and even conflicting.

http://ombuds.web.cern.ch/blog/2013/06/lets-not-confuse-stud...

The numbers make the problem clear. In 2007, the year before CERN first powered up the LHC, the lab produced 142 master's and Ph.D. theses, according to the lab's document server. Last year it produced 327. (Fermilab chipped in 54.) That abundance seems unlikely to vanish anytime soon, as last year ATLAS had 1000 grad students and CMS had 900.

In contrast, the INSPIRE Web site, a database for particle physics, currently lists 124 postdocs worldwide in experimental high-energy physics, the sort of work LHC grads have trained for.

The situation is equally difficult for postdocs trying to make the jump to a junior faculty position or a permanent job at a national lab. The Snowmass Young Physicists survey received responses from 956 early-career researchers, including 343 postdocs. But INSPIRE currently lists just 152 "junior" positions, including 61 in North America. And the supply of jobs isn't likely to increase, says John Finley, an astrophysicist at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, who is leading a search to replace two senior particle physicists.

"How should we make it attractive for them [young people] to spend 5,6,7 years in our field, be satisfied, learn about excitement, but finally be qualified to find other possibilities?" -- H. Schopper

Indeed, even while giving complete satisfaction, they have no forward vision about the possibility of pursuing a career at CERN.

This lack of an element of social responsibility in the contract policy is unacceptable. Rather than serve as a cushion of laziness for supervisors, who often have only a limited and utilitarian view when defining the opening of an IC post, the contract policy must ensure the inclusion of an element of social justice, which is cruelly absent today.

http://staff-association.web.cern.ch/content/unsatisfactory-...

The long-held but erroneous assumption of never-ending rapid growth in biomedical science has created an unsustainable hypercompetitive system that is discouraging even the most outstanding prospective students from entering our profession—and making it difficult for seasoned investigators to produce their best work. This is a recipe for long-term decline, and the problems cannot be solved with simplistic approaches. Instead, it is time to confront the dangers at hand and rethink some fundamental features of the US biomedical research ecosystem.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/09/1404402111

Since 1982, almost 800,000 PhDs were awarded in science and engineering (S&E) fields, whereas only about 100,000 academic faculty positions were created in those fields within the same time frame. The number of S&E PhDs awarded annually has also increased over this time frame, from ~19,000 in 1982 to ~36,000 in 2011. The number of faculty positions created each year, however, has not changed, with roughly 3,000 new positions created annually.

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/full/nbt.2706.html

One is simply that graduate students represent the cheapest form of labor, and so graduate programs have expanded to keep researchers well supplied. The end result is that 8,000 people get a PhD in the biological sciences each year, far more than can ever hope to find faculty positions. Only about 20 percent of them end up staying in research positions, yet graduate education generally provides training in nothing but research.

The problem is that everybody who would actually implement these reforms at the institutional level won't like them. Successful researchers will have to accept smaller and more focused labs and see their smaller pool of grad students distracted by training in areas other than research. University administrators will see their departments and incoming money both shrink. You can count on many of them to resist.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/is-us-biomedical-rese...

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#136
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I develop genomics software - my company is in my profile. If you are financially independent then you should look at becoming an adjunct professor as a long term goal. If you don't cost the university any money and you generate papers and grants then you will not have too much trouble finding a position. You should use this freedom to work on areas that other less fortunate scientist can't like project that may not…

Hm this is an interesting thought but I'm having trouble parsing it. Isn't there a contradiction there? If you generate grants and papers, you can find a job, but then you should tackle stuff that doesn't produce any results for awhile and doesn't get grants? Long term I am curious about going back to academia, and finances aren't a big issue. But being forced to do short term work is a dealbreaker. I have done some…

If I were independently wealthy, an adjunct professorship would be pretty appealing (in the right institution). Getting frontline access to very smart people working on potentially world-changing problems while having very few hard responsibilities/commitments (lectures, committees, etc) seems like a nice way to work. Being independently wealthy is a pre-requisite as the institution offers nothing but access.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#137

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…

Why are you so surprised that a metric like GPA (or undergrad accomplishment in general), with a hard ceiling, loses its correlation with actual talent at the top end of the scale? That is, most undergrads will simply never get the opportunity to publish one paper in undergrad, let alone two or three, so if you admit them to grad-school based on maybe a publication, good grades, and maybe some internship/REU experience, you should expect to admit some highly talented students and some students who were very talented at optimizing the capped metrics on their resume to the maximum but not at actual research.

Hell, in a way, it's basic reinforcement learning, is it not? What sort of rational agent or system will "go above and beyond" when the reward signal is capped at a maximum value? When you look at it that way, every single step of the selection, sorting, and filtering process we call academic meritocracy is optimizing for irrational devotion to careerist signaling, which has only a weak correlation to real devotion to science.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#138
I don't know about America, but our university here in UK just received a huge, 15 million pound grant to open another 11 PhD positions in Big Data Analysis, fully funded by Red Hat - and they practically guarantee a job afterwards, a well paid job. I am doing something completely unrelated, but I have to say that a prospect of job security for 4 years and then a good job afterwards is very enticing.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#139

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…

An administrator doesn't have to be competent at science, perhaps the opposite might help make more pragmatic decisions. For example, a former particle physicist might have a spot in his heart for multibillion dollar colliders, whereas a former football coach might invest in school nutrition.

Somebodies whose work was 'artefactual' might very well understand exactly much (or rather how little) your work is worth.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#140
post #84

I think a more nuanced article would instead explain to students how to gain competitive advantage, and work with the system, while simultaneously fulfilling the desire to work on one's own problems of interest. I still don't know for sure if I made the right choice in 1995, sticking to bio grad school, instead of trying to get a job at Yahoo! I mean, had I done the latter, I would likely be independently weathy and…

>I would likely be independently weathy and able to fund any science project I wish That is what I determined would be the best way to ensure that I could get the research projects I wanted to do actually funded.

But how would you have determined what projects were worth funding?
Post reply on HN