7 ms·

Falling Off The Ladder: How Not To Succeed In Academia

80 points by wallflower 16y ago

aridiculous 16y ago
That was one hell of a downer to wake up to. I was in the sciences for a short stint (behavioral neuroscience) and could see the drudgery and political limitations from a mile away. I made a very clear decision to put all that stuff on hold until I could somehow get involved in the sciences privately. I suppose that might be a pie in the sky thought, but it's better than filling out (scarcely granted) grant proposals all day.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
tl;dr: I failed because I stopped working hard and I was unambitious. And once I got tenure, I thought I could slack off, play the cello, go horseback riding and be a full time mom. But the system failed me too - it should have come up with a way for me to not work hard, but keep my job.
- roadnottaken 16y ago
  Good summary. However at the end, she decides it's not because she lost interest, but rather because "the system" doesn't make allowances for women in science who want to pursue other interests.
  - haecib 16y ago
    As opposed to the allowances it makes for men who want to pursue other interests? She was insecure, lazy, and unambitious. I think those were much larger factors than the mysterious lack of opportunities in science for women to do pursue things other than science.
    - rchi 16y ago
      it's all about originality, which she clearly lacked.
- dgabriel 16y ago
  I think her more important point is that to be a "successful," scientist, you have to be a domineering, workaholic, self-promoter with connections. Perhaps there are other ways to do science that don't push out brilliant people who want broader lives.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I really doubt that there is a place in the world for lazy, unambitious scientists. Science productivity is nonlinear. Simple numerical example: if it takes you 20 hours/week just to keep up with the literature, teaching duties, etc, a scientist who works 35 hours/week is only half as productive as one who works 50 hours/week. Additionally, science is cumulative. Those extra hours you put in build up your skills. This means that not only does the 50 hour/week scientist produce 2x as much as the 35 hour/week scientist, but his/her skills grow faster. So after a year, the 50 hour/week scientist not only has twice as many productive hours as the 35 hour/week scientist, but he/she also produces more per hour. You may view the character traits exhibited by successful scientists as low status or unappealing. But that doesn't mean they are unnecessary.
    - dgabriel 16y ago
      We like to think of the field of science as a meritocracy, but it is fraught with politics, trendiness, and other human pitfalls. I have known FAR more post-docs who burnt out than succeeded, and not because they were lazy or unintelligent. Interesting that you would categorize them as such. This is something that affects men and women. > You may view the character traits exhibited by successful scientists as low status or unappealing. This doesn't make any sense, except as a pot-shot. Status is what it's all about in science. Brilliant, low status people are failures.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        I said hard work/ambition are necessary, not that they are sufficient.
    - arethuza 16y ago
- rchi 16y ago
  Science is not stamp collecting. It's hardly about putting in the hours, and all about originality. Many Nobel Prize winners have hobbies in music or art.
- ja2ke 16y ago
  It seems like her problem was more a constant fear of failure and lack of acceptance, which reared its head to varying degrees over her career. That lack of ambition seems to have blossomed out of the realization that she'd sort of screwed herself over through the fear and self doubt. "Stopping working hard and being unambitions" wasn't the cause, it was the symptom. The takeaway from this article, for me, was that you can kill your own career by doubting yourself, by not putting yourself out there actively and promoting yourself. Your own fear can close doors that will eventually kill your drive. That's not a foreign idea to me -- slowly recessing into a corner when I ran into something too foreign, or frightening, to easily comprehend and master has led to my engagement dropping off the map and to my becoming mediocre at something I should be excelling at. I've since gotten over that to a large degree (though sometimes "solving" that requires me to put on a false front and be confident and engaging with people I would otherwise avoid or shy away from) but I look back at past jobs I've had that I wish I had done better in, and the roots of my problems and hers ring as related in my head. (Even though I have never "slacked off" to learn an instrument, have babies, or be female.) Sidenote: I don't know if you intended it or not but your post reads with a pretty contemptuous tone, which I don't think is needed. I think both "tl;dr"s in this thread are slightly offensive, but yours is more offensive. People racking up karma points via a summary always bugs me, regardless, but when its an opinion couched in a summary it's twice as frustrating.
- sophacles 16y ago
  What a bitch, she really should have given up when she wanted to back off and only put in the standard work-week hours. She should have been a single purpose slave, toiling away long into the night, never ever enjoying the compensation she was given, nor had any human qualities beyond scientist. It's doubly atrocious that she thought somehow meritocracy meant having some recognition and lifestyle security come from proving that she could contribute. Oh wait no... What the hell is your problem douche? Do you seriously believe everyone should just work and do nothing else? I hope 2 things for when you die alone and forgotten: 1. that you were told by someone that your existence was futile because you wanted to work less than every waking moment, and 2. that you had the realization that there is more to life than constant work but that it came too late for you to change and you are weeping bitter tears of regret as you painfully draw your last useless breath.
  - prodigal_erik 16y ago
    If we have a finite number of publically-supported research labs, I would prefer they be operated by people having scientific discovery as the foremost priority in their lives. I don't believe there are so few of them that we need to make do with people trying to fit it in as a day job around the mundane things they prefer. (Actually there's a surplus of people with this calling compared to positions we fund, judging by PhDs' horror stories about finding work.) Also, that incivility was uncalled for. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - possibilistic 16y ago
    Science is not a 9-5 job. It can't be viewed in the same light as an ordinary career. You literally must drown yourself in your work in order to push the limits of human knowledge just a little further. Only certain kinds of people are cut out for this. This woman characterized a TF that acts as an oncoprotein. That's not insignificant. It probably took her more mental, repititious, laborious effort than most people output in their entire lives. That said, when you burn out it is time to let someone else carry the flame. We can't waste precious, finite research funding on people who can't give 120%.
    - 16y ago
haecib 16y ago
tldr, don't be lazy, fail to network, and insecure in your abilities to the point where you stop trying. Nothing specific to Academia there.
- apl 16y ago
  > Nothing specific to Academia there. I disagree. Many highly skilled professions (software development, engineering, medicine) offer a sustainable career path for people who don't have the drive, ambition, focus, whatever to play at the top of their respective game. For instance, it's entirely possible to make a decent living as a mid-level engineer who puts in 40 hours a week for 40 years. Similarly, you can reconcile life and job as a doctor by shunning the race to the top and becoming a GP with absolutely acceptable salary. (This is all written from a German/British background -- things might be different in the US, but the point still stands.) In academia, there's no such thing. It's up or out. Prestigious professorships and research positions pay very well, but there's nothing between that and drowning in a sea of mediocre scientists fighting for a very limited number of government grants and internal funding. In most comparable professions, this woman could have simply accepted her low-trajectory-career and continued while emphasizing kids and private life. As a scientist, you get fired.
  - arethuza 16y ago
    From what I hear in the UK if you are something like a good heart surgeon you can pretty much name your conditions - if you are a mother with school age kids that might be to only work two days a week. And why not! I think if I was being operated on I might prefer a rested and unstressed surgeon to one who is working 80 hours a week...
- WWWWH 16y ago
  Is it not a little off to claim tl;dr and then call her lazy?
  - Muzza 16y ago
    It's entirely possible for both the author and haecib to be lazy. (I personally don't think the author came off as particularly lazy, though.)
merraksh 16y ago
This just does not happen in the male-oriented world of science in which, traditionally, dogs are keen to dine on dogs rather than share the bone between them, so to speak. That sounded a little sexist to me, though I wonder if she meant that a woman with two children can't do as much science as a man in the same situation.
Charuru 16y ago
Sounds like her biggest problem is this: However, I was always hampered by self-doubt. My initial conviction -- essential for anyone who wants to make it as a scientist -- that I could really make a difference, maybe even win a few prizes and get famous, eroded when I realized that my brain was simply not wired like those of the phalanx of Nobelists I met over the years; I was never going to be original enough to be a star. Seriously, what the hell does this mean. I believe this kind of confidence problem could be fixed by better mentorship earlier in life and perhaps a cultivation of a more hackerish mentality.
- ebaysucks 16y ago
  It's also the wrong goal to begin with. You should never worship what the price winners think, you should question it. Also, you should care about ideas, not prices.

80 points by wallflower 16y ago

That was one hell of a downer to wake up to. I was in the sciences for a short stint (behavioral neuroscience) and could see the drudgery and political limitations from a mile away. I made a very clear decision to put all that stuff on hold until I could somehow get involved in the sciences privately. I suppose that might be a pie in the sky thought, but it's better than filling out (scarcely granted) grant proposals all day.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

tl;dr: I failed because I stopped working hard and I was unambitious. And once I got tenure, I thought I could slack off, play the cello, go horseback riding and be a full time mom. But the system failed me too - it should have come up with a way for me to not work hard, but keep my job.

roadnottaken 16y ago
Good summary. However at the end, she decides it's not because she lost interest, but rather because "the system" doesn't make allowances for women in science who want to pursue other interests.
- haecib 16y ago
  As opposed to the allowances it makes for men who want to pursue other interests? She was insecure, lazy, and unambitious. I think those were much larger factors than the mysterious lack of opportunities in science for women to do pursue things other than science.
  - rchi 16y ago
    it's all about originality, which she clearly lacked.
dgabriel 16y ago
I think her more important point is that to be a "successful," scientist, you have to be a domineering, workaholic, self-promoter with connections. Perhaps there are other ways to do science that don't push out brilliant people who want broader lives.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I really doubt that there is a place in the world for lazy, unambitious scientists. Science productivity is nonlinear. Simple numerical example: if it takes you 20 hours/week just to keep up with the literature, teaching duties, etc, a scientist who works 35 hours/week is only half as productive as one who works 50 hours/week. Additionally, science is cumulative. Those extra hours you put in build up your skills. This means that not only does the 50 hour/week scientist produce 2x as much as the 35 hour/week scientist, but his/her skills grow faster. So after a year, the 50 hour/week scientist not only has twice as many productive hours as the 35 hour/week scientist, but he/she also produces more per hour. You may view the character traits exhibited by successful scientists as low status or unappealing. But that doesn't mean they are unnecessary.
  - dgabriel 16y ago
    We like to think of the field of science as a meritocracy, but it is fraught with politics, trendiness, and other human pitfalls. I have known FAR more post-docs who burnt out than succeeded, and not because they were lazy or unintelligent. Interesting that you would categorize them as such. This is something that affects men and women. > You may view the character traits exhibited by successful scientists as low status or unappealing. This doesn't make any sense, except as a pot-shot. Status is what it's all about in science. Brilliant, low status people are failures.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      I said hard work/ambition are necessary, not that they are sufficient.
  - arethuza 16y ago
rchi 16y ago
Science is not stamp collecting. It's hardly about putting in the hours, and all about originality. Many Nobel Prize winners have hobbies in music or art.
ja2ke 16y ago
It seems like her problem was more a constant fear of failure and lack of acceptance, which reared its head to varying degrees over her career. That lack of ambition seems to have blossomed out of the realization that she'd sort of screwed herself over through the fear and self doubt. "Stopping working hard and being unambitions" wasn't the cause, it was the symptom. The takeaway from this article, for me, was that you can kill your own career by doubting yourself, by not putting yourself out there actively and promoting yourself. Your own fear can close doors that will eventually kill your drive. That's not a foreign idea to me -- slowly recessing into a corner when I ran into something too foreign, or frightening, to easily comprehend and master has led to my engagement dropping off the map and to my becoming mediocre at something I should be excelling at. I've since gotten over that to a large degree (though sometimes "solving" that requires me to put on a false front and be confident and engaging with people I would otherwise avoid or shy away from) but I look back at past jobs I've had that I wish I had done better in, and the roots of my problems and hers ring as related in my head. (Even though I have never "slacked off" to learn an instrument, have babies, or be female.) Sidenote: I don't know if you intended it or not but your post reads with a pretty contemptuous tone, which I don't think is needed. I think both "tl;dr"s in this thread are slightly offensive, but yours is more offensive. People racking up karma points via a summary always bugs me, regardless, but when its an opinion couched in a summary it's twice as frustrating.
sophacles 16y ago
What a bitch, she really should have given up when she wanted to back off and only put in the standard work-week hours. She should have been a single purpose slave, toiling away long into the night, never ever enjoying the compensation she was given, nor had any human qualities beyond scientist. It's doubly atrocious that she thought somehow meritocracy meant having some recognition and lifestyle security come from proving that she could contribute. Oh wait no... What the hell is your problem douche? Do you seriously believe everyone should just work and do nothing else? I hope 2 things for when you die alone and forgotten: 1. that you were told by someone that your existence was futile because you wanted to work less than every waking moment, and 2. that you had the realization that there is more to life than constant work but that it came too late for you to change and you are weeping bitter tears of regret as you painfully draw your last useless breath.
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  If we have a finite number of publically-supported research labs, I would prefer they be operated by people having scientific discovery as the foremost priority in their lives. I don't believe there are so few of them that we need to make do with people trying to fit it in as a day job around the mundane things they prefer. (Actually there's a surplus of people with this calling compared to positions we fund, judging by PhDs' horror stories about finding work.) Also, that incivility was uncalled for. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- possibilistic 16y ago
  Science is not a 9-5 job. It can't be viewed in the same light as an ordinary career. You literally must drown yourself in your work in order to push the limits of human knowledge just a little further. Only certain kinds of people are cut out for this. This woman characterized a TF that acts as an oncoprotein. That's not insignificant. It probably took her more mental, repititious, laborious effort than most people output in their entire lives. That said, when you burn out it is time to let someone else carry the flame. We can't waste precious, finite research funding on people who can't give 120%.
  - 16y ago

haecib 16y ago

tldr, don't be lazy, fail to network, and insecure in your abilities to the point where you stop trying. Nothing specific to Academia there.

apl 16y ago
> Nothing specific to Academia there. I disagree. Many highly skilled professions (software development, engineering, medicine) offer a sustainable career path for people who don't have the drive, ambition, focus, whatever to play at the top of their respective game. For instance, it's entirely possible to make a decent living as a mid-level engineer who puts in 40 hours a week for 40 years. Similarly, you can reconcile life and job as a doctor by shunning the race to the top and becoming a GP with absolutely acceptable salary. (This is all written from a German/British background -- things might be different in the US, but the point still stands.) In academia, there's no such thing. It's up or out. Prestigious professorships and research positions pay very well, but there's nothing between that and drowning in a sea of mediocre scientists fighting for a very limited number of government grants and internal funding. In most comparable professions, this woman could have simply accepted her low-trajectory-career and continued while emphasizing kids and private life. As a scientist, you get fired.
- arethuza 16y ago
  From what I hear in the UK if you are something like a good heart surgeon you can pretty much name your conditions - if you are a mother with school age kids that might be to only work two days a week. And why not! I think if I was being operated on I might prefer a rested and unstressed surgeon to one who is working 80 hours a week...
WWWWH 16y ago
Is it not a little off to claim tl;dr and then call her lazy?
- Muzza 16y ago
  It's entirely possible for both the author and haecib to be lazy. (I personally don't think the author came off as particularly lazy, though.)

merraksh 16y ago

This just does not happen in the male-oriented world of science in which, traditionally, dogs are keen to dine on dogs rather than share the bone between them, so to speak. That sounded a little sexist to me, though I wonder if she meant that a woman with two children can't do as much science as a man in the same situation.

Charuru 16y ago

Sounds like her biggest problem is this: However, I was always hampered by self-doubt. My initial conviction -- essential for anyone who wants to make it as a scientist -- that I could really make a difference, maybe even win a few prizes and get famous, eroded when I realized that my brain was simply not wired like those of the phalanx of Nobelists I met over the years; I was never going to be original enough to be a star. Seriously, what the hell does this mean. I believe this kind of confidence problem could be fixed by better mentorship earlier in life and perhaps a cultivation of a more hackerish mentality.

ebaysucks 16y ago
It's also the wrong goal to begin with. You should never worship what the price winners think, you should question it. Also, you should care about ideas, not prices.