[deleted]
Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
21–30 of 167 posts
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#22Extensive discussion from 6 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=122106
Scott Aaronson's reply: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=312
That was submitted[0] six years ago, but got no discussion at all.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123584
There have been many, many more occasions when this was submitted,
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#23[deleted]
I mean the following to be helpful, not hurtful:
More people will understand your ideas if you organize your thoughts, use proper grammar and spelling, and reread your comment before posting it.
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#24Would like to know * how true this is, today? * Since I already have an alternative career path (computer science, programmer) can I now pursue my passion of science by going to grad school (physics)?
I have a PhD in chemistry and now I drive for Lyft. It pays 20% better than a postdoc.
I'm seeking to start up my own research program outside of traditional academia to gt away from the broken system.
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#25To be successful in science, as in most other professions, requires a combination of direct skills (ability, knowledge, industriousness, perseverance, etc.), indirect skills (e.g. connections, political ability, salesmanship) and luck.
As a field gets more overcrowded, the job itself becomes less attractive (lower pay, more hours, less interesting work) and the relative importance of the indirect skills and luck becomes much greater, leading to a lower average quality of practitioners.
Presumably, the demand to enter the profession should subsequently decrease and eventually lead to some sort of equilibrium.
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#26Would like to know * how true this is, today? * Since I already have an alternative career path (computer science, programmer) can I now pursue my passion of science by going to grad school (physics)?
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 still in academia. Other students used to come ask me questions all of the time, because I had worked in industry before going to grad school. Their questions were always some variation of "what are my options if I get out of physics?".
Edit: I'll also add that most grad students I knew gave little thought to their post-grad job prospects before starting grad school. It seems now that the message has trickled along a little better that the outlook is very poor.
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#27" I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs." and "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." Well, I'm sure glad I don't work with this professor. Yeesh! Talk about confirmation bias.
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.
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#28Would like to know * how true this is, today? * Since I already have an alternative career path (computer science, programmer) can I now pursue my passion of science by going to grad school (physics)?
I got a PhD in physics, in 1993. Everything written in Katz's article was widely known to grad students when I was in school. Through a bit of planning and probably a lot of luck, I went to industry after finishing my degree. (Friend of a friend owned a tech business).
One "fact" that is apparent by omission in Katz's article rings true today as well: The complete lack of any consideration of industry employment by a physics professor advising grad students. When I told my advisor that I was likely headed towards industry, he gave me his best wishes, but admitted that he had nothing to offer me in the way of guidance towards such a career.
There's an amusing aspect of Von Munchausen By Proxy Syndrome in a PhD thesis: You cause the problems that you subsequently solve. I chose a problem, and steered it in a direction that required solution via extensive work in electronics and programming, which then became the basis of my resume.
The irony is that those of us who swore up and down that we were in it for the love of science and not money, are now the ones who you must compete with in the job market.
As an aside, I observed that a lot of people went into fields like physics to escape the eventuality of confronting the job market, and may not have been any better off in a supposedly more lucrative field.
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#29I wonder if/when this will happen to programmers. I keep thinking that the job market for programmers will be radically different in ten years, what with the enormous amount of people "learning to code" these days. He did however suggest people to become programmers in 1999, and if you followed his advice then, you would probably still be quite happy with that decision today.
[deleted]
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#30I was thinking about trying to become a computer science professor.
I think I could potentially get more top-quality research done living an impoverished lifestyle and working at something else part time, than I could in academia, where you have to focus on pleasing the "powers that be" (program committees, grant committees, tenure committees).