Don't Become a Scientist (1999) • Hacker News Board

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#21

Post by cozzyd » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 12:25 AM UTC

nickpsecurity wrote: post #2

I think it could be better titled "Don't Become an Academic Professional or Professional Scientist." They have good reasons for this. Whereas, you can do science as a hobby in your spare time for free or up to your chosen budget. You can publish whatever you want on your web sites, social media, etc. You can often get advice or peer review from professional scientists by asking them. You might pay them for their time…

I don't know from where I sit "don't be a crank" might be better advice.

Not to say it's impossible to do science as a hobby (there's some good stuff coming out of e.g. the ham community and amateur astronomers), but sadly most of my interactions with "hobbyist scientists" have been crackpots (ok, there is some selection bias here, crackpots go to all sorts of lengths to try to contact you).

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#22

Post by bee_rider » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 12:55 AM UTC

worik wrote: post #13

Has anything changed for the better? Ten years ago the cleaners in the labs at The University of Otago had job security most of the scientists could only dream about. I was in the business school (very low rankings!) and I was amazed at the infighting, back stabbing and general lack of collegiality amongst the academic staff. I could not wait together out of there

“The cleaners have job security the scientists could only dream of” is pithy, but is it actually saying much? Cleaning is an essential, low-prestige, and potentially quite unpleasant job… I bet the cleaner is the most secure job in a lot of places.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#23

Post by nritchie » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:01 AM UTC

What he says is still correct for academics. There are too many candidates for too few positions. The pay is lousy. The hours are long. You don't really get to follow you best creative instincts. You spend an inordinate amount of time writing grants. Teaching, particularly pre-meds, can suck. Now with Trump, the problem has only been compounded. That isn't to say that there are no non-academic jobs for PhDs that can be satisfying. Just you may be a glorified engineer. No shame in that if that is what you want.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#24

Post by cozzyd » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:11 AM UTC

Scientist here. It's certainly not always an easy path, but if it's what you want, it's what you want. It's not something you fall into though...

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#25

Post by williamDafoe » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:11 AM UTC

This is 100% true but by the early 1990s computer science Phds were ALSO in the shitter because of all the 1990 layoffs and the total shutdown of industrial basic research and so every industry CS PhD was trying to get a professorship job so they could continue to do research after all the researchers in industry had been laid off!!! Science is a pyramid scheme and a very shallow pyamid with 80-90% cuts at every level !!!

Computer science has become the worst profession of all now because all the OTHER scientists say, "it's okay if I can never have a career in a scientific field I'll just switch and become a computer scientist!" And most of them will work for food ...

I graduated in 1993 when there were 20 usa positions for the 1000 CS PhDs. "That's okay" you say? "How many were from top schools" you say? 200, thats how many PhDs were from top 10 schools ... So, 10:1, a 90% cut ...

I did get a tenure track job (outside the usa - in canada) but could not afford the incredibly low pay in the most expensive city in north america (income vs housing costs ratio).

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#26

Post by tomrod » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:17 AM UTC

a1pulley wrote: post #15

"I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs." This seems a bit hyperbolic. In the mid to late 2000s, only 5 of the 15 close grad student friends I had at Caltech didn't get a tenure track position somewhere. Four of the five work in tech, and the fifth is a government electrical engineer. 4/5 were homegrown, the fifth is an immigrant, and all ten tenure track (no…

To be fair, Caltech is a top school for physics.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#27

Post by vincentpants » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:20 AM UTC

williamDafoe wrote: post #25

This is 100% true but by the early 1990s computer science Phds were ALSO in the shitter because of all the 1990 layoffs and the total shutdown of industrial basic research and so every industry CS PhD was trying to get a professorship job so they could continue to do research after all the researchers in industry had been laid off!!! Science is a pyramid scheme and a very shallow pyamid with 80-90% cuts at every leve…

Vancouver mentioned!

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#28

Post by williamDafoe » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:24 AM UTC

nritchie wrote: post #23

What he says is still correct for academics. There are too many candidates for too few positions. The pay is lousy. The hours are long. You don't really get to follow you best creative instincts. You spend an inordinate amount of time writing grants. Teaching, particularly pre-meds, can suck. Now with Trump, the problem has only been compounded. That isn't to say that there are no non-academic jobs for PhDs that can…

The oversupply has extended from phds down to bachelor's degrees. With 37% of Americans getting bachelor's degrees it doesn't mean anything anymore and is wasteful overtraining. I'm no Trumper but somebody has to stop the greedy life-wasting that academics have created by overfunding a lot of stupid duplicate research and excessive college educations by people who never have an impact...

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#29

Post by tehjoker » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:51 AM UTC

williamDafoe wrote: post #28

nritchie wrote: post #23

What he says is still correct for academics. There are too many candidates for too few positions. The pay is lousy. The hours are long. You don't really get to follow you best creative instincts. You spend an inordinate amount of time writing grants. Teaching, particularly pre-meds, can suck. Now with Trump, the problem has only been compounded. That isn't to say that there are no non-academic jobs for PhDs that can…

The oversupply has extended from phds down to bachelor's degrees. With 37% of Americans getting bachelor's degrees it doesn't mean anything anymore and is wasteful overtraining. I'm no Trumper but somebody has to stop the greedy life-wasting that academics have created by overfunding a lot of stupid duplicate research and excessive college educations by people who never have an impact...

Some would say you educate people to cultivate an engaged citizenry

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#30

Post by tehjoker » Tue, Sep 30, 2025, 1:53 AM UTC

bee_rider wrote: post #22

worik wrote: post #13

Has anything changed for the better? Ten years ago the cleaners in the labs at The University of Otago had job security most of the scientists could only dream about. I was in the business school (very low rankings!) and I was amazed at the infighting, back stabbing and general lack of collegiality amongst the academic staff. I could not wait together out of there

“The cleaners have job security the scientists could only dream of” is pithy, but is it actually saying much? Cleaning is an essential, low-prestige, and potentially quite unpleasant job… I bet the cleaner is the most secure job in a lot of places.

Not really because there’s an oversupply of people that will do it and petulant bosses