4 ms·

I can relate; I didn't study quite as hard as my peers, didn't get into the prestigious private colleges that they got into (still went to an excellent public s

by quax23 3y ago

I can relate; I didn't study quite as hard as my peers, didn't get into the prestigious private colleges that they got into (still went to an excellent public school across the Bay from Stanford), studied a fair bit of math, and ended up with a decent job where I've found that my math and problem solving skills have paid dividends. I'm certainly not making tech or F-U money, but I have a comfortable life a few years out of college and I'm lucky that I didn't have to sacrifice my youth or my interests to get here. It's also interesting to follow the trajectories of people who were in the group that over-optimized for outcomes but have fallen off that path. I think the author was able to mitigate his burnout (I presume he had a good tech career), but I know a fair amount of folks with good pedigrees who haven't, and are still in limbo (unemployed, underemployed, or taking an extended break early in their career/schooling). I know they have the potential to do great things, but it seems the stakes of burnout are much higher today and harder to recover from financially.

julianeon 3y ago
My experience, a few decades later, is that everyone who optimized for STEM and long hours in high school made the right choice. The only downside I’ve seen is some wistfulness about lost romances and the preciousness of childhood. The upside is much higher earning power and greater opportunity later in life. I’d actually be interested in counter examples. In my circle I’m not aware of any, which is different than saying they don’t exist.
- lupire 3y ago
  Optimizing for STEM is a bit different for optimizing for extreme puzzles. Math Team is a corner of math (not even the main part), and not STE at all. It's a bit of a distraction from learning useful math for S, T, E, and even pure and applied M. One of the choices a math student has to make is whether to pursue advanced caclulus/stats/engineering math, or pure math, or contest puzzles. It's a (hard!) puzzle contest (and those are fun too, but we don't pretend that taking them to an extreme level is relevant to a career).
- bee_rider 3y ago
  I’m not sure what optimizing for STEM looks like, but I think lots of us just had fun playing with computers as kids. Among S, T, E, and M, only the last one doesn’t get fun toys to play with.

by quax23 3y ago

julianeon 3y ago

My experience, a few decades later, is that everyone who optimized for STEM and long hours in high school made the right choice. The only downside I’ve seen is some wistfulness about lost romances and the preciousness of childhood. The upside is much higher earning power and greater opportunity later in life. I’d actually be interested in counter examples. In my circle I’m not aware of any, which is different than saying they don’t exist.

lupire 3y ago
Optimizing for STEM is a bit different for optimizing for extreme puzzles. Math Team is a corner of math (not even the main part), and not STE at all. It's a bit of a distraction from learning useful math for S, T, E, and even pure and applied M. One of the choices a math student has to make is whether to pursue advanced caclulus/stats/engineering math, or pure math, or contest puzzles. It's a (hard!) puzzle contest (and those are fun too, but we don't pretend that taking them to an extreme level is relevant to a career).
bee_rider 3y ago
I’m not sure what optimizing for STEM looks like, but I think lots of us just had fun playing with computers as kids. Among S, T, E, and M, only the last one doesn’t get fun toys to play with.