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

81–90 of 167 posts

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#81

Post by logicallee »

The facts presented here are OK, but the facts would be even stronger if they were about: "Don't build a hundred million dollar company; don't get traction or leave an indelible imprint on humanity." (i.e. many of us here are doing far less justified things, statistically speaking, regarding career choices as entrepreneurs. Rather like the physicists discussed in the article.)

Maybe none of us should be building anything. The facts are pretty strong toward that one, as well, and most readers building a company would have a much safer path coding at Microsoft.

It just doesn't matter. Did you know Fermat was an "amateur mathematician" and Wikipedia introduces him as such, after giving his introduction as "a French lawyer."

So what? Was mathematics a waste of his time - certainly. Would you have advised him not to squander it doing that? Would you have told him not to actually study mathematics formally and devote his profession to it? Who knows what we could have gotten.

Thankfully these arguments are never going to affect the bright minds of our or any generation, and people will go and do whatever fascinates them.

Planck, too, was discouraged from studying physics:

"The university's professor of physics, Philip von Jolly, discouraged the young student from studying physics because—as Jolly told him—it was very nearly a closed subject with little left to discover. Luckily, Planck disregarded his professor's advice." [1]

Basically that's all you need to know about the current blog post as well :) :)

[1] http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Pl-Pr/Planck-Max.html

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#82

Post by analog31 »

vacri wrote: post #75
analog31 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Munchausen by Proxy is not something you want to do in science - it's explicitly faking data (child injuries) so you get attention that you desire. It's not causing the problem, but faking the problem. MbP definitely is a very serious problem, but it's not the problem that the parent claims is happening. A better semantic fit for the science world for MbP would be faking data to get grant money. http://en.wikipedia.o…

Thanks. I realize that my analogy was a stretch, but I didn't realize it was that much of a stretch. ;)

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#83

Post by michaelochurch »

philip1209 wrote: post #66

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 Homophob…

Even though I find his political beliefs repulsive, and am sure that his beliefs have put him afoul of the academic groupthink (which leaves me in a weird place, because I dislike his beliefs but also dislike the leftist conformity being brandished against him and breaking his career) I don't think any of this stuff is relevant.

Standing alone, everything he says in this essay is correct and insightful. So I'd rather discuss that than him.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#84

Post by dekhn »

I think a more nuanced article would instead explain to students how to gain competitive advantage, and work with the system, while simultaneously fulfilling the desire to work on one's own problems of interest.

I still don't know for sure if I made the right choice in 1995, sticking to bio grad school, instead of trying to get a job at Yahoo! I mean, had I done the latter, I would likely be independently weathy and able to fund any science project I wish. On the other hand, I really did learn a lot about politics trying to be a scientist. And how to write prose that gets funded. And how to tell a good story.

Same story for 2001, when I did a couple postdocs instead of dedicating all my time trying to get a job at Google. Again, would be wealthy instead of having to work, and could contract out to answer any scientific questions I cared about...

The process of becoming a scientist was painful. The vast majority of being a scientist seems to be doing work that ensures you are free to pursue something of interest... but not having enough time to pursue it, due to bureaucracy. However, spending well over 10,000 hours laboring on interesting problems, and being able to apply the skills gained from that (without having to apply for funding) is very satisfying.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#85

Post by dekhn »

RK wrote: post #26
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'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 sti…

I'd just like to emphasize:

while most people would agree that we train too many PhDs, I can assure you: the process of training many PhDs (in any discipline) has been very, very good to Google. It selects for, and hones the skills of, people who are quantitative, can form hypotheses, and test them.

I went to Goog- and took a significant temporary hit to my bioinformatics career- while working as a software engineer on stuff that was far from science. However, I can assure you: my training could be easily transferred.

Looking at the alumni list for my program, http://biophysics.ucsf.edu/people/alumni I see a very wide range of outcomes- yeah, a few professors, but also SVPs of companies, venture capitalists, doctors, software engineers, patent counsel, and industrial scientists. You can also see the postdoc bolus.

Another way to put it: going to school is not the fast or easy path.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#86

Post by dekhn »

Thriptic wrote: post #12
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 can only speak for the biological sciences (I am a grad student in bioengineering), but from my perspective this is 100% accurate. My PI got his own lab and his first big grant (R01) in his late 20s. My father did the same at 28. In the lab I am currently in, I have personally witnessed 3 brilliant, qualified, 40 year old post-docs with fellow to faculty transition grants be turned down for assistant professorships…

BTW: R01 in late 20s is absurdly early. Your PI is not typical.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#87

Post by kghose »

nagrom wrote: post #13
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 got a PhD in particle physics 6 years ago. I did my first postdoc and enjoyed it - I got to travel, and work on relatively interesting things occasionally. Every year since then it's got worse, to the point where I've given up on getting a permanent job and am actively looking elsewhere. If I was offered an tenured academic post tomorrow, I would decline. The other thing that is generally left out of this discussio…

+1d specifically for "There's no politics as vicious as academic politics (since so little is at stake), and who your supervisor is for your PhD matters more than how clever you are."

Also, don't be ashamed - if you tried to do good, thorough work despite seeing quick and dirty work being rewarded, in the end you did a great thing!

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#88

Post by vacri »

analog31 wrote: post #82
vacri wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Munchausen by Proxy is not something you want to do in science - it's explicitly faking data (child injuries) so you get attention that you desire. It's not causing the problem, but faking the problem. MbP definitely is a very serious problem, but it's not the problem that the parent claims is happening. A better semantic fit for the science world for MbP would be faking data to get grant money. http://en.wikipedia.o…

Thanks. I realize that my analogy was a stretch, but I didn't realize it was that much of a stretch. ;)

It kind've fit, but not quite. I hadn't heard it in a context other than the literal before, which was interesting to see. :)

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#89

Post by lutorm »

dnautics wrote: post #35
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,

Scott's quip "many PhD programs even see training students for industry as a fundamental part of their mission." Has long been true for chemistry and biology, and that has possibly staved off the phenomenon for a bit longer than it was for physics (original article, 1999), but it is certainly now true in these fields too. Of course, these are all anecdotes, by which I mean data strongly filtered through confirmation…

It is really a simple analysis: The number of tenured faculty is not increasing, so to have a long-term sustainable job market, each one can only graduate one PhD. The actual number over their career is probably more like 5-10. Every one except one of them will not get a tenured faculty job, that's just basic numbers.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#90

Post by quasque »

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 don't think any of this has much relevance to the article, but there ended up being quite an ironic twist to his proud homophobia: http://www.studlife.com/news/faculty-news/2010/10/11/son-of-...
Post reply on HN