> That doesn't mean there is no room for "average" researchers. The "average" researchers are doing disservice themselves, the people funding their research, a

> That doesn't mean there is no room for "average" researchers. The "average" researchers are doing disservice themselves, the people funding their research, and actually good researchers. They are doing disservice themselves, because they would have most likely enjoyed much higher success at some other career or lifestyle. An "average" researcher at age 35 is rather poor, his or her life is rather unstable and precarious, family goals are likely unmet, their scientific output is too mediocre to be a source of pride, and generally they are not very happy. Talk to them and you'll find out. They are failing the funders, who hoped for quality output, but got worthless crap. Finally, they are failing quality researchers, who more and more eschew academia, and instead enter industry, where they can make >3x times as much money putting less effort into something that's typivally less socially valuable than high quality research. > This is a binary mindset that ignores the value of the discipline and seems like gatekeeping with no apparent benefit. The benefit is not wasting lives on worthless activities, and getting more useful research output. I do agree, though, that this is not "apparent", and is often hard to see even in hindsight. If you follow science news, however, you will find many people wondering why science productivity has fallen so much in last 50 years, despite funding being greatly increased in absolute terms. One of the reasons here is that we have many more people doing science that simply shouldn't be involved in it. > And struggling relative to your peers can happen for many reasons unrelated to core intelligence. Sure, but so what? If you cannot keep up with your peers during graduate studies, why should anyone expect you to keep up when you're actually expected to produce valuable research? Some people might not be able to keep up, because e.g. they spend half of their time caring for their disabled child. This is not their fault, but for the institutions and (usually) taxpayers who pay them, why should they care? Why wouldn't they prefer to instead employ someone who'll be able to spend more of their energy on research, and produce more valuable output? Yeah, it means that some people through their bad luck will be denied their dream career, but, again, my point is that life isn't fair, and the research careers are not prizes to be handed out to people who deserve them in some moral sense: they are public service.