3 ms·

I'd like to second Michael's point. My research is genuinely exciting. It's enthralling for little kids, grandparents, and everything in between. More import

by npk 19y ago

I'd like to second Michael's point. My research is genuinely exciting. It's enthralling for little kids, grandparents, and everything in between. More importantly, I find my research fascinating. The career path is challenging. Salary/hours worked sucks. Multiple moves are required for the two postdocs and a permanent job. There are serious politics. The question is ultimately personal. Is academia worth it?

amichail 19y ago
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.
- yters 19y ago
  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.
  - mechanical_fish 19y ago
    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.
    - yters 19y ago
      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.
      - asciilifeform 19y ago
        > 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.
- npk 19y ago
  I completely disagree with your first sentence. At least in the physical sciences. There is a spectrum of academics out there, that map to a spectrum of different personalities. Some work on stuff few people care about, some work in the mainstream and some pioneer the mainstream. There are pro/cons to all three types. Personally, I do not know many startup founders. But, the basic underlying principle of success (that I've gathered from news.yc) is "build something people want." So startups are there to provide services. Necessarily, founders do care what other people think. Academic scientists don't necessarily have that constraint.
  - amichail 19y ago
    How can you get funding as an academic if you work on something few people care about? How can you attract PhD students? How can you publish in top conferences/journals?
    - npk 19y ago
      Of course it's hard. Harder than people who aren't trying can imagine. Chance of success is low. But there are a number of success stories. Perfect example: the search for extra solar planets. Twenty years ago, Geoff Marcy, a prof at a teaching school, SF state, begged for telescope time. Now he's a prof at UC Berkeley, and (I think) PI of a roughly trillion-dollar space mission. Marcy is a multiple-sigma deviation. His success is rare. Careers in academic science have a very poor risk-adjusted payoff, worst than startups. Would I rather be the guy who pioneered planet finding or one of the google guys? Don't know. :)

by npk 19y ago

amichail 19y ago

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.

yters 19y ago
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.
- mechanical_fish 19y ago
  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.
  - yters 19y ago
    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.
    - asciilifeform 19y ago
      > 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.
npk 19y ago
I completely disagree with your first sentence. At least in the physical sciences. There is a spectrum of academics out there, that map to a spectrum of different personalities. Some work on stuff few people care about, some work in the mainstream and some pioneer the mainstream. There are pro/cons to all three types. Personally, I do not know many startup founders. But, the basic underlying principle of success (that I've gathered from news.yc) is "build something people want." So startups are there to provide services. Necessarily, founders do care what other people think. Academic scientists don't necessarily have that constraint.
- amichail 19y ago
  How can you get funding as an academic if you work on something few people care about? How can you attract PhD students? How can you publish in top conferences/journals?
  - npk 19y ago
    Of course it's hard. Harder than people who aren't trying can imagine. Chance of success is low. But there are a number of success stories. Perfect example: the search for extra solar planets. Twenty years ago, Geoff Marcy, a prof at a teaching school, SF state, begged for telescope time. Now he's a prof at UC Berkeley, and (I think) PI of a roughly trillion-dollar space mission. Marcy is a multiple-sigma deviation. His success is rare. Careers in academic science have a very poor risk-adjusted payoff, worst than startups. Would I rather be the guy who pioneered planet finding or one of the google guys? Don't know. :)