4 ms·

I was once adamant to become a researcher in physics, until I realized how difficult it is for any one to stay in that field. There are so many much more intell

I was once adamant to become a researcher in physics, until I realized how difficult it is for any one to stay in that field. There are so many much more intelligent people vying for a single professorship, and most have no stability as they constantly hop from one post-doc position to another. I left physics to become a software developer and I did not regret a bit. So the truth is, the world does not need or can afford that many people researching cancer, teach and inspire the next generation. Quit lamenting that people are leaving these fields. They are already overcrowded.

rwallace 12y ago
I agree with your last sentence, but not your third last. Society could easily afford to invest far more in research than it does, and the investment would be repaid many times over; unfortunately it has not chosen to do so. I don't believe this is a fundamental choice. People really do want things like clean energy and cures for cancer. It's just that the issue of adequately funding such has slipped down the cracks of politics. If your comparative advantage is in politics, I would recommend that as the single most important potentially solvable problem of our time. If your comparative advantage is in STEM, mind you, I think it's perfectly sensible to stay out of the rat race for the handful of physics professor jobs and become a programmer or petroleum engineer instead.
- dnautics 12y ago
  > People really do want things like clean energy and cures for cancer. No, people SAY they want these things (because maybe it makes them feel good or because it gives them social capital). But when it comes time to actually put their hands in their pockets and give, they come short. I know this since I tried to crowd-fund for cancer research. It was hard. I got barely enough. I'm still backing the project out of my own pocket to the tune of 10-20%. I've had my nonprofit website (with a donation link) on my lyft line profile for a week. I've had about 10-20 good conversations about what i'm doing. My conversion rate? 0%. In this time, I have had zero dollars donated to my nonprofit. It's ok - I am well within budget for my project.... But I'm just saying that it is facile to say people want these things but in the end one really wonders. Fact of the matter is, that politics is not very good at funding these things either. A lot of grantsmanship goes into twisting your expertise to allow the bureaucrats to dispense their money into your project. There is very little accountability, and the administrators are trained in the same system that creates the professors, (and reviews the journal articles) so it is a bit of an echo chamber.
- gaius 12y ago
  You seem to be implying that people who invest for a living are leaving money on the table for no particular reason. The truth is most research goes nowhere, and even research that generates a product, it often turns out to be a dead end. The truth is like airline seats. Everyone says they want legroom, but what they really want is the cheapest seat, regardless of how uncomfortable it is.
s73v3r 12y ago
I think he should lament that people are leaving those fields, and going into a field which does absolutely nothing productive for humans and serves only to extract wealth from others.
vacri 12y ago
The article is actually about creating wealth and benefitting society as a whole instead of rent-seeking, not the number of people in field X. The article points out some of the wealth-creation done by financiers and lawyers, and some of the rent-seeking behaviour.
texthompson 12y ago
> So the truth is, the world does not need or can afford that many people researching cancer, teach and inspire the next generation. I'm amazed that you think that. Why do you think that science is overcrowded, and more importantly, why is that the right thing for society? How would we know if we had too few, too many or exactly the right amount of people researching the fields you mention?
- netheril96 12y ago
  Science is overcrowded because there are too few positions and too little funding. Despite what many similar articles suggest, there are no shortage of smart students eagerly entering these fields, wishing to advance humanity one way or another. Many leave eventually after they realize the truth---they are not needed at all. Some of them even commit suicide after they find out that they have no position in the society after years of hard work and it is too late for them to change course. I am lucky to jump out before it is too late. Perhaps that is not right. Perhaps we should call for the world governments to increase their funding. Except that is not actually feasible, given how voters across the globe consistently elect leaders who cut science spending even more. The society may be able to afford more researchers, but the voters do not want to, and politicians have no incentive to change that. Until that is changed, calling for more bright minds to stay or enter these fields are insincere at best, talent wasting, life destroying at worst.
fsk 12y ago
I also dropped out of a Math grad school PhD program to work as a programmer. Instead of being a 40 year old postdoc permadjunct, I'm a 40 year old programmer that almost nobody wants to hire because of age discrimination. At least I earn a good salary, and can semi-retire or try to bootstrap a business.
laxatives 12y ago
I had the same experience. I was in my undergrad set on making physics a career. Pursuing a PhD is like becoming a line cook at a McDonald's financially. The state of physics graduate schools is a giant pyramid scheme. You are more or less encouraged to drop out/avoid starting in the first place by nearly everyone involved in the process. I'm not going to deny its not a bit selfish or maybe even shortsighted, but I made more money my first year out of college (as a developer) than I would as a tenured professor at most universities or colleges. Probably 2x what I would be making as a post-doc at age 35. 5x what I would be making from age 22-30. That being said, I've always fed coding is not a good long term plan and that I will inevitably replaced by a couple of fresh grads. Without specialization, there's no real job security other than a thriving tech sector.

rwallace 12y ago

I agree with your last sentence, but not your third last. Society could easily afford to invest far more in research than it does, and the investment would be repaid many times over; unfortunately it has not chosen to do so. I don't believe this is a fundamental choice. People really do want things like clean energy and cures for cancer. It's just that the issue of adequately funding such has slipped down the cracks of politics. If your comparative advantage is in politics, I would recommend that as the single most important potentially solvable problem of our time. If your comparative advantage is in STEM, mind you, I think it's perfectly sensible to stay out of the rat race for the handful of physics professor jobs and become a programmer or petroleum engineer instead.

dnautics 12y ago
> People really do want things like clean energy and cures for cancer. No, people SAY they want these things (because maybe it makes them feel good or because it gives them social capital). But when it comes time to actually put their hands in their pockets and give, they come short. I know this since I tried to crowd-fund for cancer research. It was hard. I got barely enough. I'm still backing the project out of my own pocket to the tune of 10-20%. I've had my nonprofit website (with a donation link) on my lyft line profile for a week. I've had about 10-20 good conversations about what i'm doing. My conversion rate? 0%. In this time, I have had zero dollars donated to my nonprofit. It's ok - I am well within budget for my project.... But I'm just saying that it is facile to say people want these things but in the end one really wonders. Fact of the matter is, that politics is not very good at funding these things either. A lot of grantsmanship goes into twisting your expertise to allow the bureaucrats to dispense their money into your project. There is very little accountability, and the administrators are trained in the same system that creates the professors, (and reviews the journal articles) so it is a bit of an echo chamber.
gaius 12y ago
You seem to be implying that people who invest for a living are leaving money on the table for no particular reason. The truth is most research goes nowhere, and even research that generates a product, it often turns out to be a dead end. The truth is like airline seats. Everyone says they want legroom, but what they really want is the cheapest seat, regardless of how uncomfortable it is.

s73v3r 12y ago

I think he should lament that people are leaving those fields, and going into a field which does absolutely nothing productive for humans and serves only to extract wealth from others.

vacri 12y ago

The article is actually about creating wealth and benefitting society as a whole instead of rent-seeking, not the number of people in field X. The article points out some of the wealth-creation done by financiers and lawyers, and some of the rent-seeking behaviour.

texthompson 12y ago

> So the truth is, the world does not need or can afford that many people researching cancer, teach and inspire the next generation. I'm amazed that you think that. Why do you think that science is overcrowded, and more importantly, why is that the right thing for society? How would we know if we had too few, too many or exactly the right amount of people researching the fields you mention?

netheril96 12y ago
Science is overcrowded because there are too few positions and too little funding. Despite what many similar articles suggest, there are no shortage of smart students eagerly entering these fields, wishing to advance humanity one way or another. Many leave eventually after they realize the truth---they are not needed at all. Some of them even commit suicide after they find out that they have no position in the society after years of hard work and it is too late for them to change course. I am lucky to jump out before it is too late. Perhaps that is not right. Perhaps we should call for the world governments to increase their funding. Except that is not actually feasible, given how voters across the globe consistently elect leaders who cut science spending even more. The society may be able to afford more researchers, but the voters do not want to, and politicians have no incentive to change that. Until that is changed, calling for more bright minds to stay or enter these fields are insincere at best, talent wasting, life destroying at worst.

fsk 12y ago

I also dropped out of a Math grad school PhD program to work as a programmer. Instead of being a 40 year old postdoc permadjunct, I'm a 40 year old programmer that almost nobody wants to hire because of age discrimination. At least I earn a good salary, and can semi-retire or try to bootstrap a business.

laxatives 12y ago

I had the same experience. I was in my undergrad set on making physics a career. Pursuing a PhD is like becoming a line cook at a McDonald's financially. The state of physics graduate schools is a giant pyramid scheme. You are more or less encouraged to drop out/avoid starting in the first place by nearly everyone involved in the process. I'm not going to deny its not a bit selfish or maybe even shortsighted, but I made more money my first year out of college (as a developer) than I would as a tenured professor at most universities or colleges. Probably 2x what I would be making as a post-doc at age 35. 5x what I would be making from age 22-30. That being said, I've always fed coding is not a good long term plan and that I will inevitably replaced by a couple of fresh grads. Without specialization, there's no real job security other than a thriving tech sector.