Hi, I've read through a lot of the blog here and find a lot of Jacobs arguments very interesting. I gather that Jacob would advise people against going to University and that he himself was an academic researcher at some point before retiring. So my question (to everyone of course, not just Jacob) is this:
Should anyone who is interested in ERE go down the route of scientific research?
To add a bit of perspective, I'm 21, with one year left of my Physics Masters degree. Before reading this blog and forum, I was quite certain that I wanted to do a PhD after my degree and go into research in photovoltaics, and maybe become a lecturer at some point for job security. I had always thought that although this career path may not earn big money, it would at least be satisfying. A part of me still thinks that.
Is Scientific Research Worthwhile?
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15996
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Have you read the part in chapter 2 of the ERE book about professors and education? That part is accurate!
Lecturing and "job security" has about as little to do with each other as college athlete and NFL pro player.
You should think of an academic career as the Peter principle on each level.
Masters - this is primarily an applied intelligence test.
PhD - this is to see if you have the frustration tolerance required for original research
PostDoc 1&2 - this is to see if you have the networking and self-promotional skills and the ability to publish 4 papers per year
Assistant professor - this is to test your skills as a proposal writer and your ability to bring in money (there's also a little teaching involved, research will be done in your spare time).
So which part of the process do you enjoy? I like to do research, so I loved my time in graduate school (in the same way that military guys talk about how they loved their time in basic training). However, I found I didn't like the self-promotion and the expedient attitude to research (just write something, get it published, and try to go to as many conferences as you can) that was being tested as a postdoc. I'm way too idealistic for how science is actually done these days.
Also you'll find that as you advance, "soft skills" become more and more important. About the only time when you can distinctly tell if someone does a better job is up to the master's level. Once people are no longer doing the same thing, selling becomes important.
At every point, about 50% will drop out. Half who think about grad school won't finish it. Half who finish it won't get their first postdoc. Half of those won't get their second. Half of those won't get a professorship.
You're somewhat lucky to be in solid state. The odds are somewhat better there. It's more useful to society and they have more money.
One issue is that I understand from back then (biased from anecdotes) that a lot of the so-called research is "run standard model #53 on this particular molecular problem" and so all your papers will be of the type "Investigation of the X characteristics of Y using model Z". You'll be in a field where people joke that if only they could write a computer program to write all their papers, you'll be set.
Now, one option which I can't comment on is getting the PhD and getting into industry. This would be your most likely destination anyway based on the odds above.
Recommend reading: Disciplined Minds (written by a physicist).
Lecturing and "job security" has about as little to do with each other as college athlete and NFL pro player.
You should think of an academic career as the Peter principle on each level.
Masters - this is primarily an applied intelligence test.
PhD - this is to see if you have the frustration tolerance required for original research
PostDoc 1&2 - this is to see if you have the networking and self-promotional skills and the ability to publish 4 papers per year
Assistant professor - this is to test your skills as a proposal writer and your ability to bring in money (there's also a little teaching involved, research will be done in your spare time).
So which part of the process do you enjoy? I like to do research, so I loved my time in graduate school (in the same way that military guys talk about how they loved their time in basic training). However, I found I didn't like the self-promotion and the expedient attitude to research (just write something, get it published, and try to go to as many conferences as you can) that was being tested as a postdoc. I'm way too idealistic for how science is actually done these days.
Also you'll find that as you advance, "soft skills" become more and more important. About the only time when you can distinctly tell if someone does a better job is up to the master's level. Once people are no longer doing the same thing, selling becomes important.
At every point, about 50% will drop out. Half who think about grad school won't finish it. Half who finish it won't get their first postdoc. Half of those won't get their second. Half of those won't get a professorship.
You're somewhat lucky to be in solid state. The odds are somewhat better there. It's more useful to society and they have more money.
One issue is that I understand from back then (biased from anecdotes) that a lot of the so-called research is "run standard model #53 on this particular molecular problem" and so all your papers will be of the type "Investigation of the X characteristics of Y using model Z". You'll be in a field where people joke that if only they could write a computer program to write all their papers, you'll be set.
Now, one option which I can't comment on is getting the PhD and getting into industry. This would be your most likely destination anyway based on the odds above.
Recommend reading: Disciplined Minds (written by a physicist).
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15996
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Also, it depends on how you define "worthwhile". If it's to satisfy your personal interests and you expect your personal interests to remain more or less the same for the rest of your career, being able to work on something you're interested in every day is certainly worthwhile.
If it's worthwhile to "other people" prepare to be disappointed. After a certain level, people's eyes (including those of your colleagues) will glaze over when you talk about your "interesting research". You'll learn avoid sounding too ironic when you say "interesting"
Socially speaking, when I was in grad school, I had a page about peak oil on my homepage. The traffic to that single page was larger than the combined traffic to all the research, the reports, the white papers, the promotional papers, the home pages, etc. of the entire physics institute. (I know because I was the sysadmin.)
Part of the reason I quit physics was the realization that based on human impact, my work on ERE was more worthwhile than my work on physics would ever be.
Economically speaking, physics pays better than blogging about not spending money
OTOH, things like engineering, finance, law, medicine, and computer engineering, which in my conceited understanding is certainly not harder to do than physics, pays 2-3 times better.
If it's worthwhile to "other people" prepare to be disappointed. After a certain level, people's eyes (including those of your colleagues) will glaze over when you talk about your "interesting research". You'll learn avoid sounding too ironic when you say "interesting"
Socially speaking, when I was in grad school, I had a page about peak oil on my homepage. The traffic to that single page was larger than the combined traffic to all the research, the reports, the white papers, the promotional papers, the home pages, etc. of the entire physics institute. (I know because I was the sysadmin.)
Part of the reason I quit physics was the realization that based on human impact, my work on ERE was more worthwhile than my work on physics would ever be.
Economically speaking, physics pays better than blogging about not spending money
OTOH, things like engineering, finance, law, medicine, and computer engineering, which in my conceited understanding is certainly not harder to do than physics, pays 2-3 times better.I'd like to do a phd post-ERE. Not sure if it's on-topic, but any reasons this is a bad idea would be helpful. Seems pretty ERE-friendly to learn while you get paid (a pittance), once you are FI.
If your goal is to ERE, then a pre-ERE phd probably doesn't make sense. The opportunity cost of those years do not result in enough increased earnings over the relatively few years you will work.
If you want to do bio, I understand a phd might be necessary to get into industry. I think bio is somewhat unique in that respect.
If your goal is to ERE, then a pre-ERE phd probably doesn't make sense. The opportunity cost of those years do not result in enough increased earnings over the relatively few years you will work.
If you want to do bio, I understand a phd might be necessary to get into industry. I think bio is somewhat unique in that respect.
I went to a hard science school where everyone got a math, science or engineering degree. While I know a few who went down the academic road, and most who did seem to enjoy it, far more went into industry (particularly the EEs), finance or law, some even after obtaining a PhD.
Beyond Jacob's observations of the academic ladder, which apply both to scientific and non-science fields, I think you really need to like what you are studying and not care if nobody else cares, because chances are they won't.
But really only you can know that. And if you are not sure, you need to think in terms of: "If I don't go down that road, will I always wonder and regret it later." Only you can answer that question. I think some of my friends who got their PhDs but went off to do other things are nevertheless glad/satisfied that they got them.
Beyond Jacob's observations of the academic ladder, which apply both to scientific and non-science fields, I think you really need to like what you are studying and not care if nobody else cares, because chances are they won't.
But really only you can know that. And if you are not sure, you need to think in terms of: "If I don't go down that road, will I always wonder and regret it later." Only you can answer that question. I think some of my friends who got their PhDs but went off to do other things are nevertheless glad/satisfied that they got them.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15996
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
I saw something somewhere to the effect that happiness is maximized for those who get their PhD and then go into industry right after.
In some sense, a PhD is like sex is to a virgin: Overly hyped and perceived to be the most important thing in the world, the epitome intellectual achievement. After the fact, one wonders what the big deal was. Once you're a PhD, you realize that PhDs are a dime a dozen and one is left with a sense of wonderment why some people seem somewhat impressed when you say "you're a scientist". Also, you now know just how little people with fine titles know. It does change your attitude to education by a great deal.
For those who are interested in PhDs because it's on their bucket list, know that PhDs come in many forms and flavors and it likely depends on your supervisor (and yourself) more than anything else. It is definitely more important than which "school" you went to. A PhD with well-respected Professor X from lesser known School Y gets you further than vice versa, intellectually and in academia... but not in industry where most people still have their undergraduate glasses on.
The PhD-attitude in the US is that many people get a shot and then the adviser tries to find work that matches the ability. This can lead to PhDs that are nothing more than a glorified masters or bachelors degree [with more work under it]. The European attitude is to admit only a few with a high ability.
On top of that it's a kind of crap shot whether you get a hot topic or make a hot discovery. Most likely, you'll work on something for four years and it'll follow this progression: one year of confusion (I have no idea what I'm doing, I don't know where to begin), one year of depression (This is going nowhere, I'm wasting my time), one year of hope (Yay! It's working), and the final year of productivity (I can do this and this and this... Ohh.. I guess I better collect what I have into a dissertation.) <=- An example of how doing actual original research feels like.
Keep in mind that many phds are simply glorified techs, where the prof is in full control and tells the student exactly what to do, how to interpret it, etc. I suspect the progression would be different in such a case.
Metaphorically speaking, original research is like being thrown into a derelict boat that's slowly sinking (in four years it'll sink) with a bunch of motor parts (maybe one quarter missing, so you have to make them yourself after finding out what they are in the first place) and being expected to reach land in time.
Getting a "glorified technician"-phd is like getting the blue prints for a working motor with the parts and a map and being told to visit the following islands. You often see this in large research groups, where someone becomes an expert in a tiny part of a big program thus consequentially rendering him wholly unemployable anywhere else (OTOH, as long as the experiment still exists, that's massive job security... he'll be the only one who knows have to run some weird analysis program that was written 15 years ago where someone lost the source code due to a combination of rm -rf * and the cleaning services throwing out the data tape backups).
In some sense, a PhD is like sex is to a virgin: Overly hyped and perceived to be the most important thing in the world, the epitome intellectual achievement. After the fact, one wonders what the big deal was. Once you're a PhD, you realize that PhDs are a dime a dozen and one is left with a sense of wonderment why some people seem somewhat impressed when you say "you're a scientist". Also, you now know just how little people with fine titles know. It does change your attitude to education by a great deal.
For those who are interested in PhDs because it's on their bucket list, know that PhDs come in many forms and flavors and it likely depends on your supervisor (and yourself) more than anything else. It is definitely more important than which "school" you went to. A PhD with well-respected Professor X from lesser known School Y gets you further than vice versa, intellectually and in academia... but not in industry where most people still have their undergraduate glasses on.
The PhD-attitude in the US is that many people get a shot and then the adviser tries to find work that matches the ability. This can lead to PhDs that are nothing more than a glorified masters or bachelors degree [with more work under it]. The European attitude is to admit only a few with a high ability.
On top of that it's a kind of crap shot whether you get a hot topic or make a hot discovery. Most likely, you'll work on something for four years and it'll follow this progression: one year of confusion (I have no idea what I'm doing, I don't know where to begin), one year of depression (This is going nowhere, I'm wasting my time), one year of hope (Yay! It's working), and the final year of productivity (I can do this and this and this... Ohh.. I guess I better collect what I have into a dissertation.) <=- An example of how doing actual original research feels like.
Keep in mind that many phds are simply glorified techs, where the prof is in full control and tells the student exactly what to do, how to interpret it, etc. I suspect the progression would be different in such a case.
Metaphorically speaking, original research is like being thrown into a derelict boat that's slowly sinking (in four years it'll sink) with a bunch of motor parts (maybe one quarter missing, so you have to make them yourself after finding out what they are in the first place) and being expected to reach land in time.
Getting a "glorified technician"-phd is like getting the blue prints for a working motor with the parts and a map and being told to visit the following islands. You often see this in large research groups, where someone becomes an expert in a tiny part of a big program thus consequentially rendering him wholly unemployable anywhere else (OTOH, as long as the experiment still exists, that's massive job security... he'll be the only one who knows have to run some weird analysis program that was written 15 years ago where someone lost the source code due to a combination of rm -rf * and the cleaning services throwing out the data tape backups).
Ha ha.
Masters - this is primarily an applied intelligence test.
PhD - this is to see if you have the frustration tolerance required for original research
I passed the applied intelligence test.
I WILL (goddammit) pass the frustration tolerance test, but only barely. I think my wisest move after that (next year, I hope) will be to get the hell out of there.
I am considering going a level lower, again, if I am allowed to do so. I loved most of the practical work, especially when you knew someone (a patient) was depending on it.
Masters - this is primarily an applied intelligence test.
PhD - this is to see if you have the frustration tolerance required for original research
I passed the applied intelligence test.
I WILL (goddammit) pass the frustration tolerance test, but only barely. I think my wisest move after that (next year, I hope) will be to get the hell out of there.
I am considering going a level lower, again, if I am allowed to do so. I loved most of the practical work, especially when you knew someone (a patient) was depending on it.
My two cents: I got a bachelors degree in Molecular Biology and went directly into a Ph. D. program in Microbiology which I quit after 3 years. I hated it intensely. I finished all my coursework, all my teaching requirements, and passed my prelims with great reviews (a misery trial required to become an official Ph. D. candidate) and I still quit. I liked learning about all of it, but doing research for >40h a week was misery.
Especially since your overall success depended on a lot of factors besides your intelligence. For instance, my PI had something against the university's mass spec core lab. She would refuse to pay to have anything sent there. I have spent 6 months making and testing serine/threonine/tyrosine mutants rather than pay the core lab $40 to tell me if my protein is phosphorylated by the end of the week. Experiments often just won't work in ways that have nothing to do with the actual scientific question at hand. I have been driven mad by trying to figure out which of the 100 reagents involved in an experiment has gone bad. Especially, since they often only fail to work in certain combinations. I also worked for two years with a protein produced from a piece of cloned DNA that had a one nucleotide screw up in it from another graduate student. This nucleotide turned out to make a huge difference in the protein's behavior and all of the two years of data from the mutant version were untrustable. You get the idea. Maddening. I'd say I spent maybe 20% of my time actually making progress and 80% of my time doing set up, trouble shooting, or wallowing about in the dark waiting for a lead.
Also, prepare for the constant fear of getting scooped, losing grant money, getting fired if you get pregnant (two students in my lab were let go when their first children were born), schmoozing other scientists, etc. Also, at least in my field, you were expected to work from at least 9am-7pm and come in on the weekends. From what I understand, many fields still churn out more Ph.D.s than are actually needed so none of this actually guarantees you a magical, well-funded, secure, high paying science job after all that time.
That said - I am super bitter about having spent 7 years of college on what turned out to be such a miserable pursuit. Try to find some happy people who have gone all the way for a balanced view.
Especially since your overall success depended on a lot of factors besides your intelligence. For instance, my PI had something against the university's mass spec core lab. She would refuse to pay to have anything sent there. I have spent 6 months making and testing serine/threonine/tyrosine mutants rather than pay the core lab $40 to tell me if my protein is phosphorylated by the end of the week. Experiments often just won't work in ways that have nothing to do with the actual scientific question at hand. I have been driven mad by trying to figure out which of the 100 reagents involved in an experiment has gone bad. Especially, since they often only fail to work in certain combinations. I also worked for two years with a protein produced from a piece of cloned DNA that had a one nucleotide screw up in it from another graduate student. This nucleotide turned out to make a huge difference in the protein's behavior and all of the two years of data from the mutant version were untrustable. You get the idea. Maddening. I'd say I spent maybe 20% of my time actually making progress and 80% of my time doing set up, trouble shooting, or wallowing about in the dark waiting for a lead.
Also, prepare for the constant fear of getting scooped, losing grant money, getting fired if you get pregnant (two students in my lab were let go when their first children were born), schmoozing other scientists, etc. Also, at least in my field, you were expected to work from at least 9am-7pm and come in on the weekends. From what I understand, many fields still churn out more Ph.D.s than are actually needed so none of this actually guarantees you a magical, well-funded, secure, high paying science job after all that time.
That said - I am super bitter about having spent 7 years of college on what turned out to be such a miserable pursuit. Try to find some happy people who have gone all the way for a balanced view.
@dragoncar: Your PI owns you in graduate school. They decide when and if you will graduate, when you will TA, and what classes you should take. All of your research money and equipment comes from them. They can kick you out of the lab at any time and force you to start over from scratch in a different lab (happened to my predecessor. He was kicked out so that I could have his project, since I was considered more promising). They own your time and often tell you exactly what to do with it. In short, at the time I would not have dared to tell her that I'd spent my time that week using her equipment and reagents to brew a batch of protein and run it out on a gel to deliver the gel slice to core lab. Even if I had paid the $40, there would have been a sh*tstorm.
I suppose if you were one of the chosen few who got a fabulous PI, though, your experience could be great. My two good friends who are getting their Ph.D.s soon are both still miserable but seem to think they have invested so much at this point that they will just move on to the next step.
I did meet some people who seemed really into graduate school in science. They usually came from labs that were well-funded and enjoyed socializing with other scientists (drinking and going out to dinner to try and make nice with other scientists who may be reviewing your paper someday was standard). I think it also helps to be the type who is not so concerned with spending time at home or with your family, because as far as I could tell, the most successful people rarely did. Lastly, you have to really really really enjoy having your name put on something that very few people will ever read or understand. Cause that is going to be your reward for all that work.
I did meet some people who seemed really into graduate school in science. They usually came from labs that were well-funded and enjoyed socializing with other scientists (drinking and going out to dinner to try and make nice with other scientists who may be reviewing your paper someday was standard). I think it also helps to be the type who is not so concerned with spending time at home or with your family, because as far as I could tell, the most successful people rarely did. Lastly, you have to really really really enjoy having your name put on something that very few people will ever read or understand. Cause that is going to be your reward for all that work.
Oh the postscript for my time in graduate school goes something like this. My PI was furious enough that she refused to talk to me for months after I announced I was leaving. I never received a master's degree because the only way I could earn one was by getting my PI to agree to give me one (some school automatically award you one after you complete your coursework and prelims, but not mine). 2 years later the project still hadn't gone anywhere, so most of my experiments were repeated by another graduate student who had been exceptionally unlucky in research and published under her name. The paper was published in a prestigious journal. She won an award and will likely use the same data that was not enough for me to get a masters degree to get a Ph.D. The difference is just that no one wants to let successful students go and everyone wants to move their unsuccessful students on. Ok. That's my last rant, I swear.
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15996
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
What George said. And now that the internet is widely available, it is possible to hear the voices of the drop-outs. This wasn't the case 10 years ago.
Keep in mind that speaking to students or postdocs in the system will not get your very far. They have little to gain from telling you the whole truth or the pro's and con's. You can imagine what would happen if the starry-eyed prospect listens to the sales pitch from the professor [about curing cancer], then goes and talks with the underlings and being told that it isn't all that [spending time washing petri dishes at 2am, ... kinda like what rachels said], then goes back to the professor to ask for some "clarification". The professor who's trying to recruit future workers for the glory of science quickly learns who of his assistants speak the party line and who does not. In the future, the prospects will easily be steered away from the more honest workers who can't keep their mouth shut.
What you should ask is what his previous students are doing today. The number of unfinished students is a bad sign. The typical duration of a postdoc stay is also an indicator ... if someone has been there 3 years, that's good (less than 2 is really bad---probably meant that the postdoc left ASAP). If he has no previous students, run away. Sorry new assistant professors, but the best kind of professor to work for is probably an associate professor who still does some research but doesn't have to scramble for softmoney funds and paper counts. Full professors are too far removed from research... they spend more time writing proposals and giving talks. They will have little understanding of the technical details.
Keep in mind that speaking to students or postdocs in the system will not get your very far. They have little to gain from telling you the whole truth or the pro's and con's. You can imagine what would happen if the starry-eyed prospect listens to the sales pitch from the professor [about curing cancer], then goes and talks with the underlings and being told that it isn't all that [spending time washing petri dishes at 2am, ... kinda like what rachels said], then goes back to the professor to ask for some "clarification". The professor who's trying to recruit future workers for the glory of science quickly learns who of his assistants speak the party line and who does not. In the future, the prospects will easily be steered away from the more honest workers who can't keep their mouth shut.
What you should ask is what his previous students are doing today. The number of unfinished students is a bad sign. The typical duration of a postdoc stay is also an indicator ... if someone has been there 3 years, that's good (less than 2 is really bad---probably meant that the postdoc left ASAP). If he has no previous students, run away. Sorry new assistant professors, but the best kind of professor to work for is probably an associate professor who still does some research but doesn't have to scramble for softmoney funds and paper counts. Full professors are too far removed from research... they spend more time writing proposals and giving talks. They will have little understanding of the technical details.
-
paxprobellum
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:22 pm
I think this conversation is getting a little off topic. Some thoughts:
1) Of course scientific research is worthwhile. Where would we be without <insert X million inventions here, including the thousands (millions?) of hours of work that went into producing the hardware & software for the computer you are reading this on>? The question you are asking is -- "Is MY scientific research worthwhile?". I think you need to answer that for yourself.
2) In a lot of ways, graduate school = your advisor. I would NEVER recommend someone go to a graduate program where they are required to pick an advisor before they show up (or very soon thereafter). I decided on my program based on the fact that I would have the first ~18 months to try out 3 labs and make an informed decision about WHO (not WHAT) would be my boss.
3) Watch Naturally Obsessed (free on the internet) here: http://www.thirteen.org/naturally-obsessed/ - It's actually a nice cross section of academia. Information about the documentary available here: http://naturallyobsessed.com/
4) Scientific research is not where "the big bucks" are. You (probably) won't become rich, but you'll be able to ERE just fine if you wish (Ask Jacob?
). For a more balanced (and somewhat dated) opinion on graduate schools, academic careers, etc. check out the book "A PhD is not Enough" (Feibelman 1993).
1) Of course scientific research is worthwhile. Where would we be without <insert X million inventions here, including the thousands (millions?) of hours of work that went into producing the hardware & software for the computer you are reading this on>? The question you are asking is -- "Is MY scientific research worthwhile?". I think you need to answer that for yourself.
2) In a lot of ways, graduate school = your advisor. I would NEVER recommend someone go to a graduate program where they are required to pick an advisor before they show up (or very soon thereafter). I decided on my program based on the fact that I would have the first ~18 months to try out 3 labs and make an informed decision about WHO (not WHAT) would be my boss.
3) Watch Naturally Obsessed (free on the internet) here: http://www.thirteen.org/naturally-obsessed/ - It's actually a nice cross section of academia. Information about the documentary available here: http://naturallyobsessed.com/
4) Scientific research is not where "the big bucks" are. You (probably) won't become rich, but you'll be able to ERE just fine if you wish (Ask Jacob?
). For a more balanced (and somewhat dated) opinion on graduate schools, academic careers, etc. check out the book "A PhD is not Enough" (Feibelman 1993).For an older, extreme view of grad work, see Theodore Streleski, who murdered his former faculty advisor with a hammer. He turned down parole 3 times; maybe he couldn't tell the difference by then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Streleski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Streleski