3 ms·

I think the academic path should be compared as analogous to other “creatives” paths (eg writer, musician, artists), although probably less extreme. People con

by j7ake 6y ago

I think the academic path should be compared as analogous to other “creatives” paths (eg writer, musician, artists), although probably less extreme. People continue to do it because of the ownership of the work, the nearly unlimited potential upside from discovery, and the ability to build on serendipitous discoveries into your own portfolio. The downside is being stuck in a bad situation in academia can be psychologically damaging and difficult to recover from.

ramraj07 6y ago
"the nearly unlimited potential upside" is very low probability, and if people are being fully honest with themselves, they often already know before they start their postdoc whether it's going to be worth their time. The reality is that in academia, pedigree matters, being surrounded by very smart people matters, name matters. If you don't have all of these then your postdoc is doomed to be nothing more than a mediocre-paper-mill at best. Better to get out sooner rather than later.
- DrAwdeOccarim 6y ago
  It's like a weighting function to your research output: (Pedigree + Name of PI) * first author CNS papers. You sure can succeed with a ton of first author CNS papers, but if you have some good pedigree and name of PI you don't need any many.
  - mattkrause 6y ago
    And of course, your ability to get CNS papers is strongly determined by your Pedigree + PI too. It obviously matters when submitting a paper, but it even determines what sort of experiments you can afford to work on and for how long. An HHMI-funded megalab can keep throwing things at the wall until they find some CNS-bait. Smaller groups may have to publish something to keep the lights on, even if it's less "complete."
arpa 6y ago
Funny thing, a few weeks ago I read an opinion piece posted here on HN that gives pretty solid reasoning (imho) why people pursue academic careers: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/12/11/how-academia-resembles-a-drug-gang/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/12/11/ho...

by j7ake 6y ago

ramraj07 6y ago

"the nearly unlimited potential upside" is very low probability, and if people are being fully honest with themselves, they often already know before they start their postdoc whether it's going to be worth their time. The reality is that in academia, pedigree matters, being surrounded by very smart people matters, name matters. If you don't have all of these then your postdoc is doomed to be nothing more than a mediocre-paper-mill at best. Better to get out sooner rather than later.

DrAwdeOccarim 6y ago
It's like a weighting function to your research output: (Pedigree + Name of PI) * first author CNS papers. You sure can succeed with a ton of first author CNS papers, but if you have some good pedigree and name of PI you don't need any many.
- mattkrause 6y ago
  And of course, your ability to get CNS papers is strongly determined by your Pedigree + PI too. It obviously matters when submitting a paper, but it even determines what sort of experiments you can afford to work on and for how long. An HHMI-funded megalab can keep throwing things at the wall until they find some CNS-bait. Smaller groups may have to publish something to keep the lights on, even if it's less "complete."

arpa 6y ago

Funny thing, a few weeks ago I read an opinion piece posted here on HN that gives pretty solid reasoning (imho) why people pursue academic careers: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/12/11/how-academia-resembles-a-drug-gang/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/12/11/ho...