6 ms·

I tried out for a group after the end of the first year of grad school that worked on the CMS detector at the LHC looking for SUSY signatures. The group was a w

I tried out for a group after the end of the first year of grad school that worked on the CMS detector at the LHC looking for SUSY signatures. The group was a well established group but felt super toxic: I attended a weekly meeting where the advisor demanded some analysis from a grad student and she literally froze up and started talking faster promising to finish it by the end of the week. As a part of the trying out period, they allowed us to skim one of their technical reports and they had I believe ~10+/-5 potential events matching their search for SUSY particles, this over the petabytes of data for a two or three years of the LHC runs at the time. At the time I really liked particle physics but I also liked essentially coding and thought I'd miss it, so I was conflicted. It didn't help this esteemed professor felt like such an jerk AND their search, despite all the sophistication of their search and the related physics chops, basically had a large "no" for an answer. I ended up chosing a smaller group doing computational laser-plasma physics. The CMS professor at the time retorted something along the lines of "someone shouldn't want to do particle physics and then do plasma physics, it's evidence that person isn't serious." Fast forward 10 years or so and I haven't regretted that decision. Not only is my pay much better doing this sort of thing but I really did nope out at the right time. I mean, I felt so smug about the noble prize being won by the attosecond researchers, one of whom had an office down the hall from our group. The same grad student who decided to bear the brunt of the CMS prof at the time justified the dearth of working in the group (although perhaps not the abuse, I don't know) as it would be potential "noble prize winning research." I feel I made the right bet at the time and don't regret it.

SiempreViernes 3y ago
I mean, good for you not choosing a toxic group but that's tied to the professor not the subject. Not sure why you brag about how smug you felt over the further misfortune of someone you know is suffering abuse...
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  GP is not responsible for the life decisions of other people. I read this as "I also saw a microcosm of this larger toxicity, and I'm glad I got out of it".
  - SiempreViernes 3y ago
    That reading doesn't make much sense though, because it was toxicity in a group working in a very different context: hep-th and hep-ex are such different fields by now they had to formally create positions for people bridging the two subjects. He could just as well used the story about the PhD student in computer science studying in Florida that committed suicide because their supervisor was trying to force them to publish incorrect results. (And then added how smug they felt about that group not getting awards).
    - skhunted 3y ago
      I don't understand your points. Obviously the person was stating their anecdotal experience and how it made them feel. We engage in similar reasoning. We make decisions and draw conclusions based on our experience. It's a not a mathematical proof where the person is proving that the entire field is toxic. They are glad they got out of there.
      - dambi0 3y ago
        The anecdote doesn’t reveal a great deal about toxicity though does it?
        Nevermark 3y ago
        The list of things the anecdote doesn't reveal must surely be infinite. Do we need to list them? I thought it was very interesting.
        dambi0 3y ago
        The anecdote claims to offer something about toxicity, it seems reasonable to consider whether it achieves this.
        kergonath 3y ago
        Maybe I missed something but I don’t see where they claim to offer anything, so I don’t see why they should try adhering to this (completely unreasonable) standard. Besides, the anecdote actually offers something: a perspective from someone who escaped the grinder just in time. I don’t have a cohort study at hand, but I know both first- and second-hand that the situation described is not the norm, but all too common. In such cases, the correct response is what was described: jump ship whilst you can. You don’t need a double blind study to demonstrate this when simple logic is enough.
- noobermin 3y ago
  Probably overdoing it to reply here, but I rewrote the above comment a few times. I felt smug about the nobel prize going to the attosecond guys last year because for after switching fields tenish years ago, my former particle physics co-eds and advisors seemed surprised that I absconded particle physics for such an "applied" field. There was a sort of a pecking order where a lot more of the resources and physics dept brass were from particle and astrophysics whereas our groups were considered the "applied" physicists, where "applied" was used as silent epithet. So the fact an "AMO" group very closely related to us (our group had collaborations and shared grad students with one of the winners) got the nobel and the LHC groups who were back 10 years ago were for sure expected a nobel prize for SUSY discovery by students and admins alike did make me feel smug at the time of the award last year. I added the bit about the other more senior grad student in later but didn't remove the smugness bit. Of course you'll probably not believe me but of course I do not feel smug they faced abuse and I didn't. I do admit I feel smug about the so-called applied physicists getting the nobel prize first but that feeling is more directed at the senior professors and dept chairs and certainly that LHC professor, and not her the grad student who honestly was very bright and talented but just made a different choice which at the time seemed like a sure bet for doing high impact research. I say I don't regret the decision, but really if I'm honest these were all justifications at the time. I partially decided to switch because of what I felt were bad results from their search, but it was a bet fundamentally, I didn't have some deep foresight that that other grad student didn't have and I was betting against the commonly held perspectives at the time including that which I held. Ironically, both the professor of the LHC group and the new professor who would become my PhD advisor both had the same first name, so it became the "choice between two Toms*" in my head, and I definitely liked the new Tom over the abrasive Tom, so I felt that deep down I was just following what was better for my heart (the lazy option) over for my career (the "work harder" option). But...I lucked out and it turned out to be better for my career too. There was luck in it too as she being more senior means she had already a incurred a sunk cost whereas I was fresh on my journey and could easy make one last switch before continuing the program. I say I "feel I made the right bet" but that is only in hindsight. 23 year old me had no idea this would all work out this way. * First name changed to protect privacy both of me and the related professors.
  - 3y ago
risenshinetech 3y ago
It boggles my mind that the top comments on HN are now mostly just someone shouting into the void about self-absorbed topics that are (at best) loosely correlated to the article. This one is a shining example.
- vundercind 3y ago
  It’s surprisingly easy to accidentally do a self-therapy-session in a comment box. Among other places.
- tekla 3y ago
  Karma-bait is everywhere on HN
- milesvp 3y ago
  My experience on HN for the last 15 years is that the tangential, loosely correlated, comments tend to not only be the most interesting but lead to the most interesting threads.
  - risenshinetech 3y ago
    I would agree -- but this is not one of them. This is someone gratuitously patting themselves on the back at every turn. It feels like the kind of NPC dialogue you might find in an RPG
- tivert 3y ago
  > It boggles my mind that the top comments on HN are now mostly just someone shouting into the void about self-absorbed topics that are (at best) loosely correlated to the article. This one is a shining example. It's an inside view of something I'm curious about. It may be unrepresentative, but I'll take it over the repetitive high-level stuff you see all the time.
  - eureka-belief 3y ago
    Yes I’d much prefer it over the same old articles about Musk drama and impending doom from AI.
at_a_remove 3y ago
I had a similar sort of thing. There I was, plowing away in physics, doing pretty well. I was enjoying myself. They let me, an undergrad, take some grad level courses because I was doing good work. But then I took a long, very hard look at the people who were teaching me and their lifestyles. Their cars that were always breaking down, their second jobs, how much their wives worked, their clothes, and so on. Brilliant people working for a pittance.
- dimator 3y ago
  Ok but, I'm sure the people doing that kind of work value it differently than just "how nice of a car can I afford." There is a real calling there.
  - at_a_remove 3y ago
    That really, really depends. Some of them, once you got a drink or two in them, would tell you about the indignity of academia: teaching 101 classes to kids who would rather not be there, scrabbling for grant money, the bitter jockeying for resources. Sure, you get your true-blue types, but they were largely outnumbered by people haunted by the sunk cost fallacy. And it's not really about nice cars, it's about "being able to arrive at the class you are teaching on time because your car doesn't break down every five minutes."
- whatshisface 3y ago
  Science is a lot like a cult, not in that it has dogma, but that the dream of doing something that's good attracts people to abusive relationships with leaders that do not come close to compensating them for the true value of their long and unresting labors. On top of it the positions where you work the hardest for the least are the most difficult to obtain - which makes people value them more! Its just like Sea Org in Scientology... At least the stuff they do is actually good and not, you know, evil. See also: congressional staffers.
kergonath 3y ago
> someone shouldn't want to do particle physics and then do plasma physics, it's evidence that person isn't serious That’s such a stupid and harmful thing to say. People change and it takes some maturity to realise that what we wanted to do might not actually be a good idea. It’s completely unrealistic to expect even undergrads to actually know how research is done in a specific field, so how could they be sure that they’d like it? One of the best PhD student I have seen in materials chemistry came from biochemistry. It’s much better to go and see somewhere else than persevere and go in an unsatisfying field anyway. That’s the best way of becoming an angry, bitter and resentful little professor. Now that I think of it, it might explain some of my lecturers…

SiempreViernes 3y ago

I mean, good for you not choosing a toxic group but that's tied to the professor not the subject. Not sure why you brag about how smug you felt over the further misfortune of someone you know is suffering abuse...

jvanderbot 3y ago
GP is not responsible for the life decisions of other people. I read this as "I also saw a microcosm of this larger toxicity, and I'm glad I got out of it".
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  That reading doesn't make much sense though, because it was toxicity in a group working in a very different context: hep-th and hep-ex are such different fields by now they had to formally create positions for people bridging the two subjects. He could just as well used the story about the PhD student in computer science studying in Florida that committed suicide because their supervisor was trying to force them to publish incorrect results. (And then added how smug they felt about that group not getting awards).
  - skhunted 3y ago
    I don't understand your points. Obviously the person was stating their anecdotal experience and how it made them feel. We engage in similar reasoning. We make decisions and draw conclusions based on our experience. It's a not a mathematical proof where the person is proving that the entire field is toxic. They are glad they got out of there.
    - dambi0 3y ago
      The anecdote doesn’t reveal a great deal about toxicity though does it?
      - Nevermark 3y ago
        The list of things the anecdote doesn't reveal must surely be infinite. Do we need to list them? I thought it was very interesting.
        dambi0 3y ago
        The anecdote claims to offer something about toxicity, it seems reasonable to consider whether it achieves this.
        kergonath 3y ago
        Maybe I missed something but I don’t see where they claim to offer anything, so I don’t see why they should try adhering to this (completely unreasonable) standard. Besides, the anecdote actually offers something: a perspective from someone who escaped the grinder just in time. I don’t have a cohort study at hand, but I know both first- and second-hand that the situation described is not the norm, but all too common. In such cases, the correct response is what was described: jump ship whilst you can. You don’t need a double blind study to demonstrate this when simple logic is enough.
noobermin 3y ago
Probably overdoing it to reply here, but I rewrote the above comment a few times. I felt smug about the nobel prize going to the attosecond guys last year because for after switching fields tenish years ago, my former particle physics co-eds and advisors seemed surprised that I absconded particle physics for such an "applied" field. There was a sort of a pecking order where a lot more of the resources and physics dept brass were from particle and astrophysics whereas our groups were considered the "applied" physicists, where "applied" was used as silent epithet. So the fact an "AMO" group very closely related to us (our group had collaborations and shared grad students with one of the winners) got the nobel and the LHC groups who were back 10 years ago were for sure expected a nobel prize for SUSY discovery by students and admins alike did make me feel smug at the time of the award last year. I added the bit about the other more senior grad student in later but didn't remove the smugness bit. Of course you'll probably not believe me but of course I do not feel smug they faced abuse and I didn't. I do admit I feel smug about the so-called applied physicists getting the nobel prize first but that feeling is more directed at the senior professors and dept chairs and certainly that LHC professor, and not her the grad student who honestly was very bright and talented but just made a different choice which at the time seemed like a sure bet for doing high impact research. I say I don't regret the decision, but really if I'm honest these were all justifications at the time. I partially decided to switch because of what I felt were bad results from their search, but it was a bet fundamentally, I didn't have some deep foresight that that other grad student didn't have and I was betting against the commonly held perspectives at the time including that which I held. Ironically, both the professor of the LHC group and the new professor who would become my PhD advisor both had the same first name, so it became the "choice between two Toms*" in my head, and I definitely liked the new Tom over the abrasive Tom, so I felt that deep down I was just following what was better for my heart (the lazy option) over for my career (the "work harder" option). But...I lucked out and it turned out to be better for my career too. There was luck in it too as she being more senior means she had already a incurred a sunk cost whereas I was fresh on my journey and could easy make one last switch before continuing the program. I say I "feel I made the right bet" but that is only in hindsight. 23 year old me had no idea this would all work out this way. * First name changed to protect privacy both of me and the related professors.
- 3y ago

risenshinetech 3y ago

It boggles my mind that the top comments on HN are now mostly just someone shouting into the void about self-absorbed topics that are (at best) loosely correlated to the article. This one is a shining example.

vundercind 3y ago
It’s surprisingly easy to accidentally do a self-therapy-session in a comment box. Among other places.
tekla 3y ago
Karma-bait is everywhere on HN
milesvp 3y ago
My experience on HN for the last 15 years is that the tangential, loosely correlated, comments tend to not only be the most interesting but lead to the most interesting threads.
- risenshinetech 3y ago
  I would agree -- but this is not one of them. This is someone gratuitously patting themselves on the back at every turn. It feels like the kind of NPC dialogue you might find in an RPG
tivert 3y ago
> It boggles my mind that the top comments on HN are now mostly just someone shouting into the void about self-absorbed topics that are (at best) loosely correlated to the article. This one is a shining example. It's an inside view of something I'm curious about. It may be unrepresentative, but I'll take it over the repetitive high-level stuff you see all the time.
- eureka-belief 3y ago
  Yes I’d much prefer it over the same old articles about Musk drama and impending doom from AI.

at_a_remove 3y ago

I had a similar sort of thing. There I was, plowing away in physics, doing pretty well. I was enjoying myself. They let me, an undergrad, take some grad level courses because I was doing good work. But then I took a long, very hard look at the people who were teaching me and their lifestyles. Their cars that were always breaking down, their second jobs, how much their wives worked, their clothes, and so on. Brilliant people working for a pittance.

dimator 3y ago
Ok but, I'm sure the people doing that kind of work value it differently than just "how nice of a car can I afford." There is a real calling there.
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  That really, really depends. Some of them, once you got a drink or two in them, would tell you about the indignity of academia: teaching 101 classes to kids who would rather not be there, scrabbling for grant money, the bitter jockeying for resources. Sure, you get your true-blue types, but they were largely outnumbered by people haunted by the sunk cost fallacy. And it's not really about nice cars, it's about "being able to arrive at the class you are teaching on time because your car doesn't break down every five minutes."
whatshisface 3y ago
Science is a lot like a cult, not in that it has dogma, but that the dream of doing something that's good attracts people to abusive relationships with leaders that do not come close to compensating them for the true value of their long and unresting labors. On top of it the positions where you work the hardest for the least are the most difficult to obtain - which makes people value them more! Its just like Sea Org in Scientology... At least the stuff they do is actually good and not, you know, evil. See also: congressional staffers.

kergonath 3y ago

> someone shouldn't want to do particle physics and then do plasma physics, it's evidence that person isn't serious That’s such a stupid and harmful thing to say. People change and it takes some maturity to realise that what we wanted to do might not actually be a good idea. It’s completely unrealistic to expect even undergrads to actually know how research is done in a specific field, so how could they be sure that they’d like it? One of the best PhD student I have seen in materials chemistry came from biochemistry. It’s much better to go and see somewhere else than persevere and go in an unsatisfying field anyway. That’s the best way of becoming an angry, bitter and resentful little professor. Now that I think of it, it might explain some of my lecturers…