Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't Become a Scientist.

wuphys.wustl.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 94 posts

Re: Don't Become a Scientist.

#81

Post by mechanical_fish »

timr wrote: post #71
asdflkj wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate a little on these devious ways?

The basic principle is that your advisor has control over everything , and you have control over nothing . Need an important collaboration for your next paper? That won't happen without your advisor's support. The same goes for access to specialized equipment or supplies (the budget can become very tight when your PI doesn't like you). At most schools, your PI also controls your funding; you can expect to TA more oft…

This is true. While PI's can't always fire you gracefully, they have many ways to make you wish they had fired you.

So, ultimately, if your startup-company moonlighting starts to eat too much into graduate research time, you're going to have to fish or cut bait: Either keep your adviser happy, or take the necessary leave of absence.

Note that (most) graduate advisers are not evil people. I suspect that many of them will quite happily grant you six months off to pursue your startup-company dreams... if the timing is right (hint: don't ask until just after the Nature article is submitted) and after they explain to you that your publication record and your graduation time will be set back by a year or more. Oh, and you probably won't be given the plum projects ever again, since your adviser knows that you have one eye on the door... those are the breaks of the game.

One very special caution: Your adviser may try to enlist your help in his startup company. Be very wary of this situation, or of any potential adviser with a history of this. You want your adviser to be unambiguously focused on helping you graduate and get a better-paying job... or as unambiguously as possible, anyway.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist.

#82

Post by npk »

pg wrote: post #59

What he really means is not "don't become a scientist" but "don't get a job as a professor." The two are by no means identical. There were scientists long before there were research professors (that concept dates from about 1870) and there are still plenty of scientists who aren't professors. Like being a writer, being a scientist depends on what you do, not who pays you.

How can one do relevant science without the support that comes from a research institution? Research professor (I clump lab researchers into the professor term) is certainly a new thing. So is "big money" science (a consequence of WWII.) As a result of the research prof and "big money" science, the days of ben franklin and his kite are long dead. (ben franklin was a great scientist.)

Academia is setup to provide support for scientists: it provides smart people to talk to. It provides money to pay the bills and run research labs. Where else can I receive this support?

One path is to take a 6 year detour, build a startup that pays me $30M, and then run my own research program. Honestly, that seems even harder than two postdocs.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist.

#83

Post by mechanical_fish »

yters wrote: post #69
amichail wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are an independent thinker and don't care much about what your peers think, then I don't think academia is a good choice. I think it's no coincidence that startup founders tend to be more of the rebellious types.

Unless a person needs specialized equipment or materials, why go into academia for research in the first place? It's easy enough to become financially free so you can spend all your time researching. The internet is there if you need to collaborate.

Unless a person needs specialized equipment or materials...

That is a pretty huge caveat. If you're lucky enough to be a mathematician, that's easy to say. If you're a molecular biologist... brace yourself for the sticker shock.

And it depends on your goals. If your goal is to enlighten yourself, you don't need to be an academic: you just need a decent library that gets all the Nature journals, a pile of textbooks, a local university full of grad students that like to talk about their work, and time. But if your goal is to do original work, you've got bigger financial problems.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist.

#84

Post by middle »

npk wrote: post #82
pg wrote: post #59

What he really means is not "don't become a scientist" but "don't get a job as a professor." The two are by no means identical. There were scientists long before there were research professors (that concept dates from about 1870) and there are still plenty of scientists who aren't professors. Like being a writer, being a scientist depends on what you do, not who pays you.

How can one do relevant science without the support that comes from a research institution? Research professor (I clump lab researchers into the professor term) is certainly a new thing. So is "big money" science (a consequence of WWII.) As a result of the research prof and "big money" science, the days of ben franklin and his kite are long dead. (ben franklin was a great scientist.) Academia is setup to provide supp…

meh, Einstein worked in a patent office. Galois failed the french public school teacher's exam. Grassman spent an eternity teaching middle school. The Wright brothers repaired bicycles. The academy spent most of its time telling these people they were wrong, and then, maybe, embraced them once they didn't have any choice.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist.

#85

Post by ivankirigin »

timr wrote: post #77
ivankirigin wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His comment implied that grad school is like undergrad where you accumulate lots of debt. 60K debt in student loans from undergrad is a world of difference from "wish I could save more".

My comment implied that there are people who are broke from grad school. Last time I checked my bank account, that's still true.

The many grad students I've known aren't close to rich -- but aren't broke because of school at all.

Most earn ~6 figures when they graduate, unless they go into academia where income growth is slower but benefits are better.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist.

#86

Post by yters »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #83
yters wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless a person needs specialized equipment or materials, why go into academia for research in the first place? It's easy enough to become financially free so you can spend all your time researching. The internet is there if you need to collaborate.

Unless a person needs specialized equipment or materials... That is a pretty huge caveat. If you're lucky enough to be a mathematician, that's easy to say. If you're a molecular biologist... brace yourself for the sticker shock. And it depends on your goals. If your goal is to enlighten yourself, you don't need to be an academic: you just need a decent library that gets all the Nature journals, a pile of textbooks, a…

Do you know why this is the case? The most ground breaking science has been relatively inexpensive. Has all the low hanging fruit already been picked?

Anyways, in today's world, I see the real need lying in integration, not more and more specialized research. I think this is reflected in the discouraging stories above.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist.

#88

Post by asciilifeform »

yters wrote: post #86
mechanical_fish wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless a person needs specialized equipment or materials... That is a pretty huge caveat. If you're lucky enough to be a mathematician, that's easy to say. If you're a molecular biologist... brace yourself for the sticker shock. And it depends on your goals. If your goal is to enlighten yourself, you don't need to be an academic: you just need a decent library that gets all the Nature journals, a pile of textbooks, a…

Do you know why this is the case? The most ground breaking science has been relatively inexpensive. Has all the low hanging fruit already been picked? Anyways, in today's world, I see the real need lying in integration, not more and more specialized research. I think this is reflected in the discouraging stories above.

> Do you know why this is the case?

Open a lab equipment catalog. What do you suppose the availability of grant money to most purchasers does to the prices? Also don't forget that the delivery of anything chemistry-related to a private residence is all but banned under American law.

Post reply on HN