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

61–70 of 167 posts

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#61

Post by marvin »

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).

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#62

Post by patkai »

dnautics wrote: post #37
jonathansizz wrote: post #25

To 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 beco…

I don't think it works like that because public grants are not a free-market phenomenon.

Key observation.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#63

Post by drhodes »

javert wrote: post #30

I 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).

This reminds of something Feynman said something in "You Must Be Joking..."

"When I was at Princeton in the 1940s I could see what happened to those great minds at the Institute for Advanced Study, who had been specially selected for their tremendous brains and were now given this opportunity to sit in this lovely house by the woods there, with no classes to teach, with no obligations whatsoever. These poor bastards could now sit and think clearly all by themselves, OK? So they don't get any ideas for a while: They have every opportunity to do something, and they're not getting any ideas. I believe that in a situation like this a kind of guilt or depression worms inside of you, and you begin to worry about not getting any ideas. And nothing happens. Still no ideas come. Nothing happens because there's not enough real activity and challenge: You're not in contact with the experimental guys. You don't have to think how to answer questions from the students. Nothing!"

The internet has probably nullified this effect to some extent.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#64

Post by dnautics »

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 sit around pushing paper and get nice paid junkets to pretty places like San Diego while I'm struggling trying to push innovation and deal with failure as a postdoc on 30k". Of course you can't say that to their face, because you won't get your grant continued.

In one particular egregious example, I remember a grants administrator who came to our facility, got a ride in the boss' tesla roadster, and for whom a cocktail party was thrown. Several years later, this administrator's PhD research came to light as being very likely artefactual. https://raphazlab.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/stripy-nanopartic...

The uncharitable interpretation is that this person escaped academic science to administration because they knew they couldn't hack it, because the data are willfully overinterpreted and that wouldn't fly for too long. And of course wound up in the position of managing hundreds of millions of dollars in grant moneys. I can't accuse this particular person of that particular motivation; but isn't it evident that science funding positions would disproportionately attract such people, and is that a situation we want to be in?

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#65

Post by pedrobeltrao »

geekam wrote: post #2

Would 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 started a group leader position (not tenured) since about 1 year ago in bioinformatics (UK). The trend only got worse since this article was written. It is particularly bad in biology but physics and chemistry are not much better off. There is an ongoing debate about what to do about it. A good overview of the debate can be found in this recent perspective published in the PNAS journal (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/09/1404402111).

If you have a passion for research and have a solid back-up plan that you are sure can always fall back then feel free to try. Keep in mind that your salary will go down. Also, age factors in and there is some bias towards people that have always been on a straight path of high academic success. This should not be a big issue for the PhD but it will start to matter for postdoc and tenure track positions.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#66

Post by philip1209 »

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 Homophobia": http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/defense.html

Essay "Why Terrorism Matters": http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/terror.html

Letter to school newspaper about global warming evidence: http://www.studlife.com/forum/2009/10/28/letter-to-the-edito...

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#67

Post by danieltillett »

I feel rather conflicted by any advice given to anyone to not become as scientist. I have been through the whole science treadmill all they way up to tenured professor, but I have recently given up tenure to work on my original start-up full time. I loved everything about being an professor except the pointless committee work and paper shuffling, but I reached the point where I felt I could do more good science outside of academia than inside.

My advice for what it is worth is do science if that is what you are passionate about, but work on side skills like programming, business and networking (yes networking is a skill) so that when you reach a point where science is not the way forward anymore you can do something else without feeling like you are a failure.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#68

Post by dang »

mturmon wrote: post #60
ColinWright wrote: post #22

Extensive 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,

Totally right. Polarizing/absolutist proclamations like the OP tend to start noisy, unhelpful discussions on HN. It's even worse when (as here) the OP concerns a general topic where most HN readers have anecdotal evidence, but only anecdotal evidence. This kind of outrageous statement can be kind of fun in a small group, at dinner or a bar, but not here (IMO).

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.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#69

Post by SoftwareMaven »

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

I find the trend in our society that "if you say anything I disagree with, everything you say is invalid" to be very disturbing (the corollary of "if you agree with something important to me then I will forgive much, if not all, bad behavior" seems to be true as well). McCarthyism in any form is evil, yet people will hold up their own beliefs and say "this is the only right way to believe". I fear what this will do to important rights like free speech. It doesn't matter if you have the "right" if cultural pressure squashes any ability to use it.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#70

Post by bjelkeman-again »

dnautics wrote: post #64

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…

I am sadly unimpressed by a lot of people who end up managing investment or research funds. I wonder if it is similar to politicians? It takes some specific social skill to get there, but it doesn't mean you are any good in that position when you get it.
Post reply on HN