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

141–150 of 167 posts

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#141

Post by danieltillett »

amirmc wrote: post #136
chubot wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree - it is a pity I was not born to really wealthy parents.

There was a paper in Science about 15 years ago that was on how the independently wealthy worked in science that was really interesting (I might see if I can find it online).

If we go back to the foundations of science all scientist were just wealthy dilettantes :)

Edit. Found it - actually it was from 16 years ago :P

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/279/5348/178.summary?sid=7...

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#142

Post by paolomaffei »

gambiting wrote: post #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.

then again finding a job with a software engineering related PhD (in UK or US) is not that hard at all, is it?

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#143

Post by waltherg »

gambiting wrote: post #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.

Do you have a link to this program?

I think the piece this prof wrote targets classical PhD programs and does not take into account industry-sponsored PhD programs like the one you mention.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#144

Post by roel_v »

chubot wrote: post #132
danieltillett wrote: post #121

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…

"I have done some original research outside of academia (mostly in the form of source code, some semi-published)"

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Source isn't something that gets published, source code is at best a demonstration of the concept you publish about. Either you have some papers published (that means, peer-reviewed from a real journal, not uploaded to xyz 'open access' journal) or you don't.

To 'work the system', you need to get real papers published, several, for a number of years, and work with people in positions that can get you into a university. That way you can sidestep the several years postdoc route. Or become an adjunct.

As an adjunct professor you are 'affiliated' with a university, giving you access to some resources (usually) and a name/email address to put on your papers. So yes you need a source of income besides that.

" Since I am in software I don't really need facilities...."

Yes you do, maybe not in the sense that you need hardware, but you need an environment to reflect your ideas on, and to give you social proof that you're not a quack working from his basement. Yes it's theoretically possible to get published without an academic affiliation, and it sometimes happens, but you'll never be taken serious to the same extent your competition is.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#145

Post by marc0 »

Scientist here who managed to get out of the science trap:

Prof Katz is totally right. I started a great career as string theorist, postoc at several elite universities, international lectures and talks, wrote a book, appeared on TV etc etc ... and then didn't get a professorship (at least not on a reasonable time scale). Tried scientific management for a while, but that was too depressing. So, in my late thirties (!) I went into automotive industry, working on self-driving cars, having a fantastic and cool job with a salary I could only dream of a few years ago.

I wouldn't have wanted to miss large parts of my scientific career. But I really regret my excursion into scientific management. I should have switched careers five years earlier.

My advise to young scientists: define some aims and a time scale, and if you don't meet them (i.e. get a tenured job), say good-bye. There is nothing to regret. Don't believe those professors, friends of yours, who promise you a position next year or in two or in three ...

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#147

Post by gambiting »

waltherg wrote: post #143
gambiting wrote: post #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.

Do you have a link to this program? I think the piece this prof wrote targets classical PhD programs and does not take into account industry-sponsored PhD programs like the one you mention.

http://digitalinstitute.ncl.ac.uk/centre-for-doctoral-traini...

And also the email we've been sent directly by the university:

We’re delighted to announce that we have been awarded an EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Cloud Computing for Big Data. This new multi-million pound initiative will train the next generation of experts in the analysis of "big data" using the latest cloud computing technologies and statistical techniques. People with these skills are in such demand that the Centre is being heavily backed by industry worldwide (including Microsoft, Red Hat and IBM); companies will work with us on the training, and provide placements during the PhD.

Some additional details are included in the University Press Release: http://t.co/5HvBUhhZ1t

We have eleven fully funded, four year PhD studentships available for home (including EU) students to start in October 2014. These fully cover both the fees, and living expenses (no loans or debts are needed).

We are recruiting students from both Computing Science and Mathematics/Statistics backgrounds and providing an intensive course of interdisciplinary training during Year 1 of the four year PhD programme. Students from a CS background will be trained in advanced cloud computing and statistical skills during year 1, beginning with a crash course in "Statistics for Computer Scientists" in October. Students will then work on a PhD research project.

As well as working with closely with industry, the course will also teach and support students interested in setting up their own company.

We can provide full funding (fees plus living expenses) for students expected to gain a II(i) or First who meet the usual Home fee status regulations (contact us if you are not sure).

If you would like to register an interest in this programme, or ask any questions, please send an email to bigdata-cdt-enquiries@ncl.ac.uk containing your full name, stage, degree programme, fee status and predicted degree classification. In the case of a predicted degree classification of II(i), please also include a predicted final average. Students registering an interest will be sent further details about the programme, including information on how to apply, as soon as applications formally opens.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#148

Post by javert »

Balgair wrote: post #47
javert wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm finishing my 5th year of grad school now. My adviser constantly sets expectations so high that they literally cannot be met. I have had to skip holidays and neglect my family and I have still often had my work trivialized. My work is not appreciated, the fact that I have given up almost everything else in my life is not appreciated. Most people do not even make it to their 5th year in our group.

I spent a lot of time being really bitter about all this. But I have realized that you have to do this to be a good scientist. My adviser only wants to train good scientists. So I'm not even upset about it any more. I have to look beyond my adviser, and look at the actual science I am doing, and realize that he is irrelevant, but that I still have to behave in this way (i.e. giving up much else in my life) to make progress.

I don't know if you'll encounter this in neurosci. Perhaps good neurosci research can be done without this level of commitment. I'm sure it would depend on your exact specialty. But I'm telling you all this so that you don't end up being really bitter towards your adviser if you get into a situation like many aspiring scientists face. It's not his fault.

I'm not exactly sure what your problem was with the quotes you posted. I guess it was that he was calling his students weak? My point is: in school, what your adviser says is fundamentally irrelevant. Don't let it affect your self-esteem. But science itself has a way of absolutely kicking your butt. And that is why professors say things like that in the first place.

It takes massive virtue to be a good scientist. It also takes a particular set of life circumstances in order for it to be a rational choice. What I do would not have been a rational choice if I had considered it mandatory (for me) to have a girlfriend or start a family, for example (at this stage in life).

That said, I haven't left because what I do truly is rewarding. I can't think of anything I'd rather be doing. I am a purely selfish person. I don't do science for the greater good. So my point here is: it can be worth it.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#150

Post by unmei »

mshakya wrote: post #56
unmei wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just finished a PhD in Biochemistry. It's accurate (I got a job as a programmer)

how difficult or easy was for you to change field?

Not bad. I spent a year as a CS major in undergrad and programming is something that I did as a hobby for most of college and grad school, so even without a degree, I had a pretty decent resume for entry-level positions.
Post reply on HN