4 ms·

If no one did the research that anyone could do, it would never get done.

marcosdumay 2y ago
In most markets, it pays to be contrarian. ... and when everybody decides to be a contrarian, the contrarian position is to do the popular thing. But the catch is that this never happens on practice.
lmeyerov 2y ago
As I wrote, different folks will already be chasing more immediate projects as they're too attractive: Think masters students, industry labs, startups, etc. Rules are meant to be broken. For example, a professor will often put a masters student on a cute me-too one-off project in a hot area as the short-termism helps the student have a smoother time, and the professor is trading expected low impact in the the project for a cheap shot to see if there is a more interesting question behind the immediate one. Much of the PhD is about learning to spot & navigate problems, not solutions. Young PhD students can totally pick the same me-too problems of masters students. The advisors would likely just think the student is using the same approach to seeing where the PhD worthy problem is. If still nothing, should be ready to drop the topic, or if they truly love me-too work more than the PhD process, leave for a better environment for that, like a company / industry lab / startup throwing more resources at the problem. Also, not every phd needs to do the original topic of attempting impact. You can totally use the PhD years to learn how to do me-too & unimpactful work or even the most weird & niche problems: as long as at least one advisor thinks they can stay funded while supporting you, most programs will let you through.
bonoboTP 2y ago
You're right, but the individual has to ask if entering a crowded niche is worth it or not. Does your main strength lie in absurd workload to grind out the paper a few months/weeks earlier to Arxiv than the next group will? The risk reward calculus still often benefits this approach. The risk is that you get scooped. If you do something nonobvious, the risk is that it doesn't pan out or the reviewers don't get the point. The latter is harder to solve by grinding. So many phds will chose the former, as at least putting in ridiculous hours feels more actionable. Also, doing the straightforward thing and getting scooped is less ego-hurting than failing at your own special pet idea. I think many who aren't in grad school don't understand how extremely important it is to have publications. At the beginning you must get publications to do internships and to build contacts at conferences. Then later it becomes imperative in order to graduate and get your next position. Nowadays you must even have multiple top conference papers just to start a PhD. Of course from the point of view of the advisor with 15 PhD students, the ideal student would do high risk high reward work and if 3 projects become super successful, 5 become quite successful and 7 yield nothing, that's still great for the advisor. But the 7 who lost several years would rather not go through this.

In most markets, it pays to be contrarian. ... and when everybody decides to be a contrarian, the contrarian position is to do the popular thing. But the catch is that this never happens on practice.

lmeyerov 2y ago

As I wrote, different folks will already be chasing more immediate projects as they're too attractive: Think masters students, industry labs, startups, etc. Rules are meant to be broken. For example, a professor will often put a masters student on a cute me-too one-off project in a hot area as the short-termism helps the student have a smoother time, and the professor is trading expected low impact in the the project for a cheap shot to see if there is a more interesting question behind the immediate one. Much of the PhD is about learning to spot & navigate problems, not solutions. Young PhD students can totally pick the same me-too problems of masters students. The advisors would likely just think the student is using the same approach to seeing where the PhD worthy problem is. If still nothing, should be ready to drop the topic, or if they truly love me-too work more than the PhD process, leave for a better environment for that, like a company / industry lab / startup throwing more resources at the problem. Also, not every phd needs to do the original topic of attempting impact. You can totally use the PhD years to learn how to do me-too & unimpactful work or even the most weird & niche problems: as long as at least one advisor thinks they can stay funded while supporting you, most programs will let you through.

bonoboTP 2y ago

You're right, but the individual has to ask if entering a crowded niche is worth it or not. Does your main strength lie in absurd workload to grind out the paper a few months/weeks earlier to Arxiv than the next group will? The risk reward calculus still often benefits this approach. The risk is that you get scooped. If you do something nonobvious, the risk is that it doesn't pan out or the reviewers don't get the point. The latter is harder to solve by grinding. So many phds will chose the former, as at least putting in ridiculous hours feels more actionable. Also, doing the straightforward thing and getting scooped is less ego-hurting than failing at your own special pet idea. I think many who aren't in grad school don't understand how extremely important it is to have publications. At the beginning you must get publications to do internships and to build contacts at conferences. Then later it becomes imperative in order to graduate and get your next position. Nowadays you must even have multiple top conference papers just to start a PhD. Of course from the point of view of the advisor with 15 PhD students, the ideal student would do high risk high reward work and if 3 projects become super successful, 5 become quite successful and 7 yield nothing, that's still great for the advisor. But the 7 who lost several years would rather not go through this.