EPTOn May 16 2010 09:08 thedeadhaji wrote:
His views are a bit biased but his facts are reliable imo...
His views are a bit biased but his facts are reliable imo...
Don't become a scientist - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
| ||
|
Kenpachi
United States9908 Posts
On May 16 2010 10:11 micronesia wrote: People who hear I'm teaching physics in hs often ask "why didn't you just teach in college instead?" and I laugh. huh why do you laugh | ||
|
blahman3344
United States2015 Posts
| ||
|
Uthgar
United States21 Posts
I tell my friends that research and science are beautiful things. You have a problem and you need to solve it, and use your head, but the actual process that is prevalent in todays's system is butt ugly.Starcraft is not helping me graduate though, but the problems in it are just as interesting to solve. How do i reliably beat protoss as terran :O? haha | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
| ||
|
shindigs
United States4795 Posts
On May 16 2010 09:39 Catyoul wrote: The author makes good points in the article. A little digression first before getting to that though. I have a PhD in physics. Even in the beginning, I knew right away I didn't want to continue in academia after finishing it. But that's not why I was doing it anyway. After completing it, I completely switched fields to computer programming, without even doing a postdoc. Now I work in a cool high-tech company, on the development of an operating system for embedded applications and I'm super happy. I might start one myself in the next few years. If you're looking at it from a purely finanical point of view, I don't think the years of PhD will ever pay for themselves in the form of better salaries, but that's not everything. Ultimately, it was a stimulating experience because I had the great luck of being in the right lab with the right people on an interesting subject and it contributed to my intellectual development, which is really all I could have asked for. Back to the article. In my mind, its emphasis should be : the academia structure is rotten (for the major part, there are plenty of exceptions obviously). If you want to be a scientist in the true sense, you might be better off pursuing that in another environment. Just because it's the social norm that science should be done by pursuing an academic career in an environment rotten by money doesn't mean that a) YOU have to do it there b) it's still the best environment that it once was. Time is wasted like crazy on getting funds and grants to keep doing the research. Subjects that would otherwise be great to study are put aside because they are not the best funds catchers. The same deadend subjects, that sometimes have been proven dry, just get rehashed again and again just because they're safer and guaranteed to get funded. The system just doesn't work anymore. Well, technically it works in its own perverted way... to get popular and safe subjects research money, but it doesn't serve the aim of Science with a big S anymore. How'd you make the huge switch? And what was it like? I think I might want to end up going through a similar situation =S | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On May 16 2010 09:39 Catyoul wrote: The author makes good points in the article. A little digression first before getting to that though. I have a PhD in physics. Even in the beginning, I knew right away I didn't want to continue in academia after finishing it. But that's not why I was doing it anyway. After completing it, I completely switched fields to computer programming, without even doing a postdoc. Now I work in a cool high-tech company, on the development of an operating system for embedded applications and I'm super happy. I might start one myself in the next few years. If you're looking at it from a purely finanical point of view, I don't think the years of PhD will ever pay for themselves in the form of better salaries, but that's not everything. Ultimately, it was a stimulating experience because I had the great luck of being in the right lab with the right people on an interesting subject and it contributed to my intellectual development, which is really all I could have asked for. Back to the article. In my mind, its emphasis should be : the academia structure is rotten (for the major part, there are plenty of exceptions obviously). If you want to be a scientist in the true sense, you might be better off pursuing that in another environment. Just because it's the social norm that science should be done by pursuing an academic career in an environment rotten by money doesn't mean that a) YOU have to do it there b) it's still the best environment that it once was. Time is wasted like crazy on getting funds and grants to keep doing the research. Subjects that would otherwise be great to study are put aside because they are not the best funds catchers. The same deadend subjects, that sometimes have been proven dry, just get rehashed again and again just because they're safer and guaranteed to get funded. The system just doesn't work anymore. Well, technically it works in its own perverted way... to get popular and safe subjects research money, but it doesn't serve the aim of Science with a big S anymore. I think the study and funding of already-known-topics in science today is a major problem with humanity. It almost precludes major developments because the academic community rejects them, through a combination of seniors who will not accept new ideas because it invalidates much of their life's work, and younger scientists who cannot pursue certain subjects because of funding reasons and the likelihood they will be ostracized which is fatal in such a small and competitive community. Who can we rely on though, if not the academic community? Everyone else is a "crackpot" and every subject that is not mainstream is just flat out wrong, after all. | ||
|
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On May 16 2010 10:38 fight_or_flight wrote: I think the study and funding of already-known-topics in science today is a major problem with humanity. It almost precludes major developments because the academic community rejects them, through a combination of seniors who will not accept new ideas because it invalidates much of their life's work, and younger scientists who cannot pursue certain subjects because of funding reasons and the likelihood they will be ostracized which is fatal in such a small and competitive community. Who can we rely on though, if not the academic community? Everyone else is a "crackpot" and every subject that is not mainstream is just flat out wrong, after all. reminded me of this person: | ||
|
Catyoul
France2377 Posts
On May 16 2010 09:55 lowbright wrote: Do you feel that your time would have been put to better use if you had decided to go into computer programming from the beginning instead of obtaining your Ph.D.? That's the big question. I must first say I had tried hard for many years to avoid ending up in computer programming as a job and keep it as just a hobby, because honestly the majority of programming jobs is boring stuff. So I probably wouldn't have gotten into it as a job had I not done a phd anyway, it was kind of an accident. But to try to answer your question I'm not sure really, it's hard to evaluate. It's also hard to say for sure what "better" is. Would I have made more money if I started right away ? Certainly. Would I now be better at my exact job ? Probably. Would I be better overall ? Doubtful. I'm a big proponent of a generalist education, and broadening intellectual horizons by touching a lot of different domains. I think it's a stronger long term choice, even if it leads to a little short term loss in money and specialization. The opposite would be like learning to do one build order perfectly in starcraft with all its possible variations. Yeah, you'll be really good at it but you will peak lower than people going for the full package and you will be missing out on plenty of stuff. Of course in real life the "full package" is really broad so you can't do everything, but you get my point. I will digress again, about generalist education, with a warning. That kind of profile might not make you popular with HR people in the science field, who, as far as I've seen, are mostly looking for "clones" specialized in exactly what they expect them to be doing. That problem is a bit similar to the research subjects getting funded being the safe ones. Which is ridiculous anyway since big companies will train you for months before you begin being productive, and small companies need people who are capable of handling multiple tasks or multiple aspects of a task. But I guess it makes them feel safer, it gives them a known quantity, not as good on average, but with less variance. Also the situation is France is a bit peculiar, the education system is like nowhere else due to historical reasons. The PhD is almost a hindrance to get a job. Still, I would have been welcomed with open arms had I chosen to go in consulting or finance, where apparently scientific PhDs are one of the typical profiles they try to recruit. My diploma before the PhD has great value in France, so it was kind of a negative added value on the job market to get it, but I figured, if I want to work in France, I have my original diploma and if I want to go work abroad, I have the PhD, so I will have all bases covered. Ultimately, my answer to your question would be that it's probably not answerable. I don't know what would have made me happier down the line. Of course it's a somewhat life changing choice because... well it changes so many things, but in the end I don't think it matters that much in the grand scheme of things. You'll have to weigh pros and cons specific to your own situation and desires. For me, experimental physics really helped sharpen my mind, it was stimulating and I had a good time. Well, except the part where I had to write it all down, that sucked lol, but at least the end result is good. Maybe my answer would be that it's as good of a waste of time as anything else in life. | ||
|
sgeng
United States78 Posts
| ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
On May 16 2010 10:11 micronesia wrote: People who hear I'm teaching physics in hs often ask "why didn't you just teach in college instead?" and I laugh. lol, those 2 arent even comparable. | ||
|
Catyoul
France2377 Posts
On May 16 2010 10:32 shindigs wrote: How'd you make the huge switch? And what was it like? I think I might want to end up going through a similar situation =S Programming had always been a passion of mine, since a very young age. I dabbled in many languages, in reverse engineering, security, etc. so I had the baggage to at least be able to quickly learn the job and the recruiter saw that. As I replied above, I wasn't looking for such a job, because I think most jobs as coders are boring, maintenance stuff of boring corporate software, so I intended to keep it as a hobby. To the switch itself. I was actually looking for and applying to industry jobs in physics when I stumbled upon one single offer in programming that seemed really interesting. So, why not, I said. It went well and very quickly from there. A couple of days later I started. There is only one big decision to make in this case : are you ready to leave your field of origin, potentially for good ? Myself, I see all of it as just one big field that's thinking, so whatever, as long as I have fun doing it. I know that will probably make it really hard to get a job in a big physics company later, but I don't think I will want to go there in the future anyway. It's been great, and I don't have the slightest regret about making the switch. It's a matter of opportunity. If you get a good one, why not take it. You just have to show you have the desire to do it, what it takes to do it, and find someone capable of recognizing your potential and willing to bet on it. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On May 16 2010 08:54 Ghostcom wrote: How would you get a doctorate before having worked a couple of years? If you are talking about a PhD, get the PhD before beginning to work. A doctorate requires years and years to get, and is the acknowledgment of well-performed research. Or well, nvm - I see you are from Italy, I believe the doctorate title is about equal to the PhD. isn't it? In that case, get the PhD/doctorate/whatever you call it first as the 3 years you spend counts as job-experience and it shows that you got ambition and dedication that you didn't just "fool around" for a couple of years before getting started. huh? PhD stands for doctor of philosophy. a PhD is a doctorate. | ||
|
Catyoul
France2377 Posts
On May 16 2010 10:38 fight_or_flight wrote: I think the study and funding of already-known-topics in science today is a major problem with humanity. It almost precludes major developments because the academic community rejects them, through a combination of seniors who will not accept new ideas because it invalidates much of their life's work, and younger scientists who cannot pursue certain subjects because of funding reasons and the likelihood they will be ostracized which is fatal in such a small and competitive community. Who can we rely on though, if not the academic community? Everyone else is a "crackpot" and every subject that is not mainstream is just flat out wrong, after all. I absolutely agree. I've seen some students show through their research their supervisor's work was worthless, never going to work, a big deadend. You can guess it didn't go really well for them. In one hilarious case though, the just ditched his supervisor and went to a "competitor" who was glad to welcome his results and he was able to finish his phd. Honestly, I think given some time, new structures are bound to emerge and crush this one. If not in our countries, in other ones. Maybe they won't be very structured to begin with too. In the current system, it's mostly a minority of exceptional people, exceptional minds, who keep things going, the others just bring marginal improvements or are simply useless (or worse, parasites). edit: another anecdote. At some famous particle physics experiments center I won't name, you have to wait for your share of machine time to do your experiments, as in most places. However, the time you get is linked to the results of your experiments. So the "best" practice is to just, out of 5 experiments for example, try 4 you already know the result of and 1 real, so you can get more time in the future. Brilliant use of multi-billion $ equipment imo. | ||
|
rackdude
United States882 Posts
| ||
|
NightFury
Canada114 Posts
My current PI for the lab I work in has a really interesting position. He is a professor with the university, but is affiliated with a hospital. Therefore, he cannot get tenured at the university due to his position, but it does lead to more funding opportunities (he can apply for specific grants through the hospital). While I don't know the exact details, I believe he does make more than the average tenure track professor. So it seems like he got the middle of the road between professor and industry work. He probably has a greater salary (compared to tenure track professors) and gets to pursue his own interests (compared to researchers in the industry). Of course, he probably makes less than an industrial researcher and doesn't have the security that tenure provides. A number of professors (namely in chemistry department, but others too) have their own small private companies. In addition to their work as a professor, they can make quite a bit more by offering their services in a specialized field. I recall one of my chemistry professors had his own company that synthesized custom crown ethers for pharmaceutical companies. Another option (and jokingly referred to everyone's second choice if they don't get into their professional/graduate program) is teaching in secondary schools. Having a MSc/MA or PhD nets you a much larger salary than a person with a BA/BSc with their BEd. Whether or not this makes up for the years you spend acquiring that graduate degree is questionable though. So while becoming a scientist/researcher/professor can be a risky path to walk, there are tons of options available. I've been told you can do plenty with a PhD, but staying in academia can definitely be a risk. | ||
|
illu
Canada2531 Posts
Hey, if I can't become a professor I can always go work at McDonald's. Also, you have to understand he is a PHYSICS professor. While this was the hottest science about 100-60 years ago (Einstein, quantum mechanics, atomic bombs, etc.) it is no longer the case. Nowadays I think the best quantitative field is statistics and mathematical finance. Of course, physiology and medicine will always be the best field for academic research with best funding available. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
Compared to most things, I find the academic track he described to be very meritocratic, in the long run. Ph.D. students and post-doc's are usually underpaid, but if successful have the opportunity to independently run their own research, and become a tenured professor-one of the best jobs possible. No successful post-doc really views it as a bad job, that I have seen  Speaking from a Bio perspective, I feel like the track is very competitive but full of opportunity to people who are dedicated. On May 16 2010 09:24 KOFgokuon wrote: The life of an academic is not one that I envy. I just don't have the drive to do it. If you come from a top notch department (MIT, stanford, berkeley, cal tech, UIUC, whatever) then you won't have a problem getting a faculty position, consulting jobs, engineering jobs whatever, but I feel for people who end up getting Ph.D's at lower notch schools and struggle to find positions Maybe it is different in Chemical Engineering than Biology, but for Bio they won't care what university it is, they will only care about publication quality. Although in Bio you won't get a faculty position as a Ph.D. graduate without a post-doc anyway. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On May 16 2010 10:38 fight_or_flight wrote: I think the study and funding of already-known-topics in science today is a major problem with humanity. It almost precludes major developments because the academic community rejects them, through a combination of seniors who will not accept new ideas because it invalidates much of their life's work, and younger scientists who cannot pursue certain subjects because of funding reasons and the likelihood they will be ostracized which is fatal in such a small and competitive community. Who can we rely on though, if not the academic community? Everyone else is a "crackpot" and every subject that is not mainstream is just flat out wrong, after all. This is kind of hard to argue because it is so vague, but I think you are wrong. There are many issues with grant writing, but there is not much of an enforcement of ideology when it comes to funding. Things that are "great to study are put aside because they are not the greatest fund catchers"? What are you talking about? When you submit a grant, you usually do so with new data you have generated and a plan, with alternatives, which is likely to provide some result for something significant. Things which are already studied are not considered significant. An important part of your grant score is novelty. For NIH funded biology, you can search all grants which have been funded here: http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm Could you use it to give some example of what you are talking about? | ||
|
Snausages
United States529 Posts
| ||
| ||
