Live data from Hacker News

Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

yangxiao.cs.ua.edu

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#71
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's really relevant. If capitalism fails to allow people to live worthwhile lives, then I don't think it helps much to say some other system is worse. That doesn't change the fact that capitalism is a failed system.

Exactly: when people are unhappy and decide they're going to remove the heads of the ruling class, "but is worse!" is some gallows humor while they do it. Which has historical precedent: the French revolution wasn't a well planned transition to a better system, the Russian revolutionaries overthrowing the Tsar weren't much interested in the specific details of communism. If the defense you have for the suffering of p…

This is the difference between a revolution and a rebellion imo.

Revolution: Fight to change the system.

Rebellion: Ok with the system. Fight to be at the head themselfes.

But it makes sense that in reality it isn't as black and white.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democratic socialism, also called social democracy, has been dramatically more effective than America's late stage capitalism. The heavily unionized capitalism that we had in the decades after WW2 also worked much better than our present system.

Someone should do the super duper hard work of figuring out what it was exactly that changed and made that stop working.

They have; it's the deregulation of industry and the disempowering of anti-trust from Reagan onwards. Unfortunately it's a hard sell to undo these. But some progress is being made on antitrust.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#73
One of George Orwell's essays (I forget which) talks about how writing only suits people who feel compelled to do it, even to the point of starvation if it doesn't reap an income. When I left academia in the mid 2010's I had a similar feeling about it.

> The struggle for a job is now replaced by a struggle for grant support, and again there is a glut of scientists. Now you spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. Worse, because your proposals are judged by your competitors you cannot follow your curiosity, but must spend your effort and talents on anticipating and deflecting criticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems.

I've always wondered how far this contributes to the apparent slowdown of fundamental breakthroughs in theoretical physics.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#74

I'm a research scientist, and I think it's fine. Though it may vary with your country and time. During my PhD, we learned that about 1 in 10 PhDs got a permanent academic position. That's intentional - the industry wants way more PhDs than the university. If we only trained future professors, we'd train many fewer. But PhDs have low unemployment, even in subjects like history and philosophy, and the jobs they get in…

> So getting a PhD is not exactly the career suicide that people paint it as. Even when it is not career suicide, it usually is a pay cut in real terms compared to getting a job at a company earlier and accumulating experience on the job.

The original claim was that PhD in physics destroys your life more then drugs. Which is not a thing even if we talk about marihuanna rather then heroin.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#75
post #73

One of George Orwell's essays (I forget which) talks about how writing only suits people who feel compelled to do it, even to the point of starvation if it doesn't reap an income. When I left academia in the mid 2010's I had a similar feeling about it. > The struggle for a job is now replaced by a struggle for grant support, and again there is a glut of scientists. Now you spend your time writing proposals rather tha…

>Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand. For all one knows that demon is simply the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention

--EAB, Why I Write

(The trick could be for some of us amateurs to preferentially attend to the preternaturally funny babies)

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#76
post #19

This reminds me of numerous pieces I’ve read by authors on why not to try to become an author, like this: https://www.elysian.press/p/publishing-industry-truth What it boils down to is that these are fields with a supply glut of people and/or product. My take is: never try to enter such a field unless you really think you have a chance at performing in the top 20% of all entrants in that field. Anything else is a dic…

Unfortunately, I met a lot of people in graduate school who were in that top 20% in terms of their ability in their discipline. But they were on a collision course with expectations of employers for what kinds of work they were interested in. The conventional wisdom is you got a science PhD because you want to be an outgoing, driven, competitive leader. And they may have been treating the academe as a shelter from th…

> The conventional wisdom is you got a science PhD because you want to be an outgoing, driven, competitive leader.

I have never seen such wisdom. In my neck of woods, PhD is about being hugely into some aspect of science, seeing value in it and being willing to work a lot on it even in bad conditions. The only that tracks is being competitive.

But, you can be introverted, you wont lead anything and no one expects you to.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#77
post #70

I'm a research scientist, and I think it's fine. Though it may vary with your country and time. During my PhD, we learned that about 1 in 10 PhDs got a permanent academic position. That's intentional - the industry wants way more PhDs than the university. If we only trained future professors, we'd train many fewer. But PhDs have low unemployment, even in subjects like history and philosophy, and the jobs they get in…

Industries that want PhDs are quite limited IME. Very few companies are running their own research labs. I guess pharma would but in CS? Not one company in my country. I also don't remember seeing PhD requirement/advantage in who's hiring on HN. There may be, but they are for sure rare. In my country, in some job positions, a company is also required to give higher salaries to PhDs, so they reject such candidates bec…

CS is an outlier, as most software jobs require relatively little formal education. STEM in general is not as forgiving.

In many sciences, your primary job options are teaching and research. And if you are going to do research, employers generally expect a PhD. Physics is probably the most extreme case, as it's common to see physics departments award one PhD for every three bachelor's degrees.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#78
I did my Ph. D. between 1998 and 2003. I did not regret doing that but after one year as a post doc I left the academic world for one simple reason:

I realized the career paths were limited to two options I did not like: option 1) try to shoot for a tenure position somewhere via a long series of post doc positions. Expect to be mostly busy managing postdocs and researchers and lobbying for funding by the time you get there. Tenured professors delegate all the fun bits (i.e. research). 2) Become a lecturer. That's what happens to all the post docs that don't make it all the way.

It sounds harsh and it's unfair to the great teachers I had in university. But that roughly is the pecking order at many universities. If you're not cut out for securing lots of funding, you get to do the chore of teaching. Those are the two main things universities need to get done. The pesky business of actually doing the research is something that gets delegated to young phd students and post docs. Tenure positions are for those with a proven track record of securing funding. Typically via getting others to do great research.

That's the reason I left. Because I liked the research part, didn't mind the teaching part but absolutely hated the dreary university politics and the endless stupid infighting for power, funding, etc.

So I moved into industry, worked at an industrial research center for a bit (Nokia Research) and then found my way into startups. Building startups is a lot like doing research. You are solving fascinating problems that haven't been solved before. It requires the same sort of skills, you are running experiments, theorizing solutions, learning about new problems to solve, etc. You don't get to write a lot of papers and articles. Which isn't something I miss that much. While doing my Ph. D. the pressure to publish was so high it barely left any time for the actual research. With a startup it's the other way around.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#79
post #24

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...

Also a scientist here. The part of this article I disagree with is "Science is a profession, not a religious vocation, and does not justify an oath of poverty or celibacy".

I really think it is the closest thing I have to a religion. It alters how I see the world, defines the way I think about how to approach problems, and consumes every waking moment of my life.

Of course, I've had many failed relationships either directly or indirectly for my career, and it has taken my health (I sustained a spinal injury at work) and best years of my life. I feel deeply uncomfortable when I am _not_ working and it is difficult for me to relax. Intellectually I recognise that it is deeply unhealthy but every time I write a grant everyone else in the world who applies is ranked and objectively compared to me -- and I can't shake this feeling that _they don't sleep_, so why should I? It's an absolute obsession and I go into this hyper-focussed mode when I _actually_ get things done and, when an experiment reveals something for the first time in the world, the feeling is amazing.

I've just won an academic prize and have a tenured post. I'm deeply, deeply insecure and have a very unhealthy relationship with work. Many academics I know – especially in medicine – are likely diagnosable with very real conditions...

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#80
post #73

One of George Orwell's essays (I forget which) talks about how writing only suits people who feel compelled to do it, even to the point of starvation if it doesn't reap an income. When I left academia in the mid 2010's I had a similar feeling about it. > The struggle for a job is now replaced by a struggle for grant support, and again there is a glut of scientists. Now you spend your time writing proposals rather tha…

I defended my PhD this year and I think a lot of people in my department expected me to stay in academia. When they asked why I didn't want to go be a professor I've always responded "I want to do research." It seems everyone immediately understood usually responded a somber nod.

I feel the contract of academia has been broken. I'll give up high pay and gladly teach students if I am given the freedom to explore and define my own research path. But that is not the job of a professor. They spend all their days writing grants, doing service, mentoring grad students in how to write works that get the most citations, and build their connections. Little time is usually left for students and rarely is there time for research on their own. Why would I want to do all that when I can make 3x as much in industry, work fewer hours, and have access to better tools to do my own research? While industry will also not give me much freedom there's no doubt that I will actually have time to do research if I find the energy.

We fucked up. We let the bureaucrats take over. They care about metrics but not for what the metrics measure. Unfortunately this isn't unique to academia. But we lost sight of the whole purpose of academia. Academia was always supposed to be different. Not about profits. Research is high risk, but results in massive rewards. It research creates the foundation for trillion dollar industries. Sometimes it takes decades to see that reward, but the research is cheap.

Post reply on HN