3 ms·
Out of my many friends who have gone into academia, the most successful one works the least by far: maybe 1-2 hours per day on average. He publishes more papers
by zemvpferreira 4y ago
Out of my many friends who have gone into academia, the most successful one works the least by far: maybe 1-2 hours per day on average. He publishes more papers than the rest of his department put together. At 35 he had more citations than 90% of PhDs at the end of their career.
This individual chose his field of study, university, department, collaborators etc etc based on time leverage. Everything is done remotely and there are practically no meetings. Every paper written produces material for another three. Every sentence is recycled from publication to publication if possible. Automation (python scripts) performs most of the analytical work. Conferences are attended exclusively to find more collaborators to feed into the system. Tier 1 journals are pursued relentlessly. Extra-research commitments are brutally minimised. Most importantly his data collection methodologies are hundreds of times more time-effective than his peers. We're at the beach together most summer afternoons. Having read some of his work, it's much better science than most as well.
The fact is most people aren't tactical about their careers. They don't want to hear what it takes to be successful in the system and would rather treat their PhD as a hoity-toity vocation than admit they have more in common with a blue-collar miner than with Kant or Mendel. If you want to cosplay as Darwin then you need to get on a boat for 5 years on your father's money and cross your fingers you have a brilliant revelation. But if you see your education as a job and apply a hacker mentality academia is easy ground to till.
- rm445 4y agoYour friend sounds like a remarkable person, but it's not really clear from your account whether he has hacked career success in the career field of academia, or has found more efficient ways to do great science. If you accept there's a difference between those things, and that the latter is more important to the world at large, it's concerning.
- zemvpferreira 4y agoI wouldn't say he does 'great science' and I don't think he would either. He pokes at the edges of a highly specific field using math/programming tools that are incredibly basic by HN's standards but almost magical to his peers. It's all leverage. It's good, solid work done very efficiently. Will the next Pasteur or Semmelweis work this way? Probably not. But let's not pretend 99.9999% of PhD's are on that route anyway. And no big deal. Science would do better optimising for an army of effective workers than the odd genius. Those tend to make themselves known anyway.