Leaving the science cult is indeed the right move in order to discover the reality of life.
Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
91–100 of 119 posts
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#92Leaving the science cult is indeed the right move in order to discover the reality of life.
Which is...?
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#93Looking back, we only had two guys in our class that went for Ph.D - both ended up doing a Ph.D in ML, coming from electrical engineering. This was back when ImageNet changed the scene. Both were extremely sharp. One of them ended up leaving for industry after 5 years postdoc, the other publishes like a machine, had stints at some really prestigious schools (Stanford, CMU) - but as far as I can find, still postdoc 10…
> still postdoc 10 years after getting his Ph.D
I think this is just a matter of what position you want. A classmate of mine wrote one paper on machine learning (he basically barely know how to run the Python to train some ancient neural net), did a short 1 year postdoc with his advisor and got a job as a professor at some no-name university in Japan.
I'm sure your classmate could get a professorship somewhere if he wanted. If his goal is to be a professor at Caltech then it's a different story
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#94What he says is still correct for academics. There are too many candidates for too few positions. The pay is lousy. The hours are long. You don't really get to follow you best creative instincts. You spend an inordinate amount of time writing grants. Teaching, particularly pre-meds, can suck. Now with Trump, the problem has only been compounded. That isn't to say that there are no non-academic jobs for PhDs that can…
It feels like part of the problem is that society has failed to provide alternatives. There are two many academics for too few jobs. However, there aren't really alternatives for intellectually stimulating careers.
Is it really societies job to provide intellectually stimulating careers? If these people are really that smart shouldn't they be able to figure out something themselves? A way to get funded?
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#95One 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 d…
[dead]
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#96Here's what nobody talks about: the author was RIGHT about the structural problems. But completely wrong about the solution. The PhD glut? Real. The postdoc treadmill? Absolutely real. The funding crisis? Still here. But here's what changed: The same skills that make you survive a PhD—deep research, systems thinking, hypothesis testing, data analysis—became the EXACT skills the market desperately needs. 2025 reality:…
Most academic topics have near-zero applicability to industry. A classmate just got her PhD on some paleoclimate records of biomarkers in permafrost. It's not a job. If you love the topic and do research in it.. then awesome. Otherwise, hope you enjoyed the ride. You're gunna have to retrain for the next gig.
The training otherwise is a bit of a joke.. you can write some janky Python to shit out crappy plots. You learn to skim papers.. and some bare-minimum stats. It's not worth doing for some nebulous "scientist training"
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#97Here's what nobody talks about: the author was RIGHT about the structural problems. But completely wrong about the solution. The PhD glut? Real. The postdoc treadmill? Absolutely real. The funding crisis? Still here. But here's what changed: The same skills that make you survive a PhD—deep research, systems thinking, hypothesis testing, data analysis—became the EXACT skills the market desperately needs. 2025 reality:…
I did my PhD while working, so it's not even that either or. And just to add to your point, it is really so rare to get that kind of mentoring, feedback than in a PhD program. It might depend on the program, but you finally have access to the brightest minds in your field and get to socialize with them.
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been on LinkedIn a bunch lately while I'm looking for work. The cadence and "But here's what changed:" are extremely LinkedIn coded. I hope this is just an LLM and people aren't actually starting to talk this way.
Yeah, the only difference between that post and a full linkedIn post is the AI generated illustration.
It's the LinkedIn version of the challenge to tell people they can prove P=NP without te ...
As far as Jane Jacobs (not a professional) is concerned, this is the hardest problem for any tribe of humans: how to survive as a culture?
On values (some say fumes) or on money. Values vs value. Academia back in the days of Athena was a "solution" on the values end of the spectrum. Religion, too, until they figured out they could appeal to the "charity" of the spiritually hungry rich (& later, everyone)
(I appreciate the Benedictine orders for limiting their offer of spiritual goods to some devilish brews )
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should read about the history of communism. Until you do, you have no idea how utterly horrible life can get.
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.
True, but if you don't have a better alternative, then it doesn't help at all to clamor for "something better", as it doesn't exist. The best you can do is put up with reality. Frankly, that's just a general principle for living. The world will always be full of things you don't like that you can do nothing about, save to make things worse.
(I happen to think there are cultural changes and political and economic reforms that could improve the quality of our lives, but these will not be found in the the narrow and superficial debates about capitalism and socialism. The key is to begin with the right questions: "what does it mean to be human?" and "how should we live?/what is the good life?" The first is a question belonging to philosophical anthropology, the second to ethics, and these further presuppose a good basic knowledge of metaphysics, at least. Until you have a good grasp of these, you are not in a position to effectively approach the question of what kinds of political and economic orders and arrangements should be fostered, as these depend on the answers to the former. If you cling instead to the categories imposed by modernism, whose inherent tensions and contradictions are now coming to the surface and playing out in a slow-motion death rattle, then you're wasting your time.)
Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)
#100I 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…
Sorry for possibly an ignorant question as I don't know much about research. Do you think if you manage to have an exit from a startup, you might be able to return to research (at a university) but then be your own funder, so that you could then research whatever you want?
I'd probably just continue working on projects I care about. I don't see a need to do that in a university context. At this point I've spent way more time as a software developer and founder than as a researcher. I'm not sure I'd want to get back into publishing necessarily. Publishing really is just a means to an end. A marketing tool. If you have something exciting to report, fine. But most published work is more or less the opposite. For every ground breaking article in Nature there are hundreds of thousands of workshop and conference reports, journal articles, etc. I got used to and addicted to more rapid cycles.