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

101–110 of 167 posts

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#101

Post by jjoonathan »

michaelochurch wrote: post #83
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…

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.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#102

Post by logicallee »

logicallee wrote: post #81

The facts presented here are OK, but the facts would be even stronger if they were about: "Don't build a hundred million dollar company; don't get traction or leave an indelible imprint on humanity." (i.e. many of us here are doing far less justified things, statistically speaking, regarding career choices as entrepreneurs. Rather like the physicists discussed in the article.) Maybe none of us should be building anyt…

I should clarify that I mean that the argument and facts that the article uses are OK. It starts:

>Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to uncover the mysteries of nature, perform experiments or carry out calculations to learn how the world works? Forget it!

and ends

>What can be done? The first thing for any young person (which means anyone who does not have a permanent job in science) to do is to pursue another career.

But the very same argument would apply to: "Are you thinking of founding a company? Do you want to build value and change the lives of millions of people, getting rich in the process? Forget it!"

We could then go on to state why entrepreneurship has an even lower success rate than that talked about in the article. For every one hundred people who set out to change the world by founding a company, how many succeed?

The truth is that the average founder's prospects are, rationally, miserable.

That does not stop the best and brightest from going into entrepreneurship, building companies and actually changing the world.

In the exact same sense that Planck was not discouraged by his university's professor of physics stating that he should not study physics, and should concentrate on something else. Likewise Von Neuman's father insisted he study chemistry (which he did, along with mathematics.)

The facts presented in the article just don't matter to those who have a true passion for science, just as the statistics don't matter for those of us building companies. They will study mathematics, or physics, or start companies, regardless of the odds. It's not a rational decision so much as a passionate one.

If I've missed something please do tell me.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#103

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

verroq wrote: post #100
GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Kind of interesting you'd put 'I hate gay people' on the same level as 'I hated the latest Godzilla'.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#104

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

ben1040 wrote: post #46
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...

"After coming out, Katz persuaded his father to remove from his website the "In Defense of Homophobia" essay, written in 1999, when Isaac was 11."

The essay appears to be back up, I guess Katz pere doubled down.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#105

Post by verroq »

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #103
verroq wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Kind of interesting you'd put 'I hate gay people' on the same level as 'I hated the latest Godzilla'.

>You: What he thinks of gay people is relevant when talking about postdoc positions.

>Me: Yeah right

>You: I bet you hate gay people too

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#106

Post by Bahamut »

pavanred wrote: post #74
RK wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's becoming more common as far as I can tell - I also left academia (mathematics) since academia is less about the work you do now. My brother stuck it out and finished his PhD in chemistry, but he too bolted from academia since he hated it as well (and that is with the fortune of having a high reputation thesis advisor, but who milked him for as many papers as he could before my brother threatened to just up and leave) - he's now a senior engineer at Samsung.

The academic landscape is just poor these days - it is a pretty brutal world to operate in.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#107

Post by lvs »

marvin wrote: post #61
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

This is a textbook ad hominem attack. Although I have very little respect for homophobes, this doesn't automatically torpedo every other argument a person makes. (Especially when it is on a completely unrelated subject).

Both of these are questions of judgement and rational thinking. Should one take career advice from a bigot? I leave it up to you.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#108

Post by dang »

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.

Anecdotes are just fine on Hacker News. They belong in conversation. People communicate in stories.

Citing studies is fine too, but not required. This is a forum, not a journal.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#109

Post by dang »

sprash wrote: post #17
lumberjack wrote: post #14

Does anyone know how the situation in Europe compares for post grads in Math, Physics and CS?

It is pretty simple to get a permanent position in Physics here. All you need is a vagina.

All: When you see a comment that is truly bad for HN, you can flag it by clicking "link" to go to the item page and then "flag" at the top. We monitor those flags and take action based on them.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#110

Post by bitwize »

Part of the problem is that Murkans are inherently fearful/distrustful of science and scientists, so it's hard to get any respect -- and the attendant pay raises -- unless you work in defense or "national security". The situation is different in Europe or Asia, though, so if you do want to become a scientist, you'd have a much better time of it outside the USA.
Post reply on HN