3 ms·

That's why I also mentioned "done things not many people have done". I was referring to professional accomplishments such as getting published, speaking at conf

That's why I also mentioned "done things not many people have done". I was referring to professional accomplishments such as getting published, speaking at conferences, invent something that other people use, etc. You can try thinking of people that did all of that by pure luck but that's not the norm.

GPerson 6y ago
I’m just beginning a career, but from my limited experience, it’s already clear that the majority of people in the room for these kinds activities (on the paper, or on the team) are not contributing much. There’s usually a highly capable and productive minority. And often times the person benefitting the most is not the most capable/productive, but the most charismatic and savy. Maybe a more experienced person can assuage this budding cynical view.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  I think this characterisation is quite fair either (I assume you talk about academia). You are correct that many of the senior people (i.e. professors) are not very involved technically and often do overestimate their own technical contributions ("I gave the postdoc the idea to use that instrument, try that trick"), however many of them did start out as very technically and scientifically talented people. The problem is that the way academic funding is structured really pushes academics into a path were they are unable to do any more direct technical and academic work. I would estimate that unless they move into primarily administrative&teaching work, professors spend about 30% of their time applying for funding, and they don't do that just to build empires or stroke their ego. If you stop and get to a period of a 1-2 years without funding, it's incredibly difficult to ever get funding again, because when your applications get assessed you get judged on your track record (previous publications) and often reviewers want to see some preliminary results to show your proposal is feasible (the irony is that on the other hand proposals should be "high-risk, high-gain". I'm not kidding, I've had proposal reviews were I was criticised by one reviewer that there was not enough preliminary work to show the project is feasible, and another reviewer said that my I essentially had already done everything on the project and so there was not gain left). The result is that when you start a project you already need to write your next proposal, leaving you no time to actually do technical work.
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    sorry that should have said: "this characterisation isn't quite fair"

GPerson 6y ago

I’m just beginning a career, but from my limited experience, it’s already clear that the majority of people in the room for these kinds activities (on the paper, or on the team) are not contributing much. There’s usually a highly capable and productive minority. And often times the person benefitting the most is not the most capable/productive, but the most charismatic and savy. Maybe a more experienced person can assuage this budding cynical view.

cycomanic 6y ago
I think this characterisation is quite fair either (I assume you talk about academia). You are correct that many of the senior people (i.e. professors) are not very involved technically and often do overestimate their own technical contributions ("I gave the postdoc the idea to use that instrument, try that trick"), however many of them did start out as very technically and scientifically talented people. The problem is that the way academic funding is structured really pushes academics into a path were they are unable to do any more direct technical and academic work. I would estimate that unless they move into primarily administrative&teaching work, professors spend about 30% of their time applying for funding, and they don't do that just to build empires or stroke their ego. If you stop and get to a period of a 1-2 years without funding, it's incredibly difficult to ever get funding again, because when your applications get assessed you get judged on your track record (previous publications) and often reviewers want to see some preliminary results to show your proposal is feasible (the irony is that on the other hand proposals should be "high-risk, high-gain". I'm not kidding, I've had proposal reviews were I was criticised by one reviewer that there was not enough preliminary work to show the project is feasible, and another reviewer said that my I essentially had already done everything on the project and so there was not gain left). The result is that when you start a project you already need to write your next proposal, leaving you no time to actually do technical work.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  sorry that should have said: "this characterisation isn't quite fair"