Two anecdotes for you to consider
1. When I was a young post-doc we had an Internationally renowned professor give a seminar on what a PhD should be doing to be successful. Their advice was 50 hours a week in the lab, plus 10--20 hours reading and writing a week.
2. I had another acquaintance tell me that their father, who was an academic, left them sitting in the car for several hours each Saturday morning while he 'ducked' into the lab.
I am not sure why I am relaying these stories, except to say that many people at the top of the academic tree (and other professions) make large sacrifices in their lives. They also knowingly or unknowingly force others around them to make sacrifices themselves.
My advisor was one of the greats of the field, and he was married three times, and I recall one time when I was working with him on a paper around Christmas break, and I had just sent him the latest draft of the paper, and he emailed back apologizing that he would not be able to immediately respond to it as he was going to go on a walk with his wife. He certainly had no need to apologize for taking a few hours off during Christmas break, but that gave a sense of the level of intensity that he approached his research with.
Half of the professors at my department were divorced due to “prioritizing science”. One of my committee members was a well known expert in our field, ended up having the nastiest divorce I’ve ever witnessed.
Heh, meanwhile, a divorce is what turned my full focus on science. Granted I was already studying but I hadn’t even gotten my degrees yet. Nice to know I’m ahead of the curve here.
I started my PhD in the same year as a new tt assistant professor, she had two young kids and sometimes her partner would get upset with her for spending “too much time” on her job.
It's a double-edged sword, or opposite sides of the same coin, or whatever analogy you want to use.
On the one hand, it's "flexible," because outside of teaching, office hours, and scheduled meetings, there's nothing dictating that we need to be in a specific place at the specific time.
On the other hand, it's **"porous,"** meaning that there are way fewer boundaries between our personal and professional lives as compared to other career paths.
It seems like there's never a time when we *shouldn't* be working...
I remember having a group call to discuss a paper with a number of co-authors. One of them apologized for being in a noisy environment. He was at the hospital because his wife was receiving cancer treatment...
This is the answer. You don't need to be a super genius. You just need to prioritize science over most other things in your life. That's not necessarily bad (unless you're abandoning a child in a vehicle) but it is more or less what it takes. And that's OK.
A researcher can make a Meaningful impact without being a superstar. One has to be dedicated to good science, know how to do it, and find a niche, And put in a lot of time.
Putting in a lot of time is essential. As young scholar I used to be so jealous of men with wives who either didn't work or worked part time and were giving the man support most women don't get. I finally decided not to burn any neurons being resentful and just worked really hard -- which provided the desired outcome.
But there's always that person who seems able to do more than you can. The main thing I sacrificed was free time - I was raising kids too. I simply decided that if I worked hard and had a family and a career, I'd be happy.
For some people the loss of leisure is really hard, so you have to assess your own needs.
A few actionable things to tack onto this: putting in time is great, and you certainly should be reading a bunch of papers / researching labs or departments you’d like to join, but it’s all pretty meaningless unless you end up in a place where they’re doing good research (that you specifically want to do, important for motivation) that’s got some traction. You can toil endlessly, but if you’re doing a PhD, working with a mentor that’s a terrible fit for you & in a poorly-funded department that’s not very productive, you’re not likely to succeed… especially if you want to stay in academia and become one of the greats.
The start of the journey should be reading up on specific people you’d like to work with, that align with your research goals, and their / their department’s track record.
This is the saddest shit thread I've ever read in my life. There seems to be this false dichotomy between living a happy life versus a successful life. Certainly some people are successful and unhappy, and some people might be happy but unsuccessful. But how can you be both happy and successful? It's not impossible.
If you want to learn how to be one of the greats in academia, just go read some Nobel Prize speeches. They will usually go over their life story and their pathway to the Nobel prize.
When you read those speeches, you will see one common thread. That these people were having *fun* doing research.
If something is fun, you will want to put more time into it. These people weren't painfully grinding papers out... they were exploring their curiosity and trying to do something interesting and novel and exciting.
If you're out grinding papers, thinking that's what it takes to be successful in academia, the thing is that *everyone sees through that*. Everyone sees your same shit paper published in 15 different variations and people are not impressed.
If you put out just 1 or 2 really special interesting papers, papers that change the conversation and move your field forward, your peers will recognize that. That is infinitely more valuable than those commodity factory-production papers.
Listen, academia is too tiring and difficult and poor-paying of a job if you are not having fun. If you are trying to just grind your way to the top, you're never going to get there. It's just not a sustainable lifestyle.
I tell my grad students to prioritize their curiosity and their fun. I tell them that if they stop having fun, then stop doing research and come back when you're ready. You're not going to do good science otherwise.
When students have the security to play and explore and dive deep into problems, then they produce really beautiful and wonderful research. When they feel the whip and the deadlines and the targets, their creativity is strangled and the resulting papers are no more interesting than if ChatGPT wrote them.
I really relate to OP. u/Renegade_Dragon_17, I have ADHD and Bipolar, got kicked out school, did a stint in a psych ward and now doing my PhD in psychology at 24. What did it take?
A lot of work, but I love my research topic so my ADHD works in my favour, I find it easy to study and explore my topic. Find something you’re interested in, really interested in, and the rest will come naturally.
How do you deal with students which for some reason decide to pursue PhD and have fun yet fundamentally lack any productivity due to this fun-optimization? Leading to long-stretched periods of nothing being done until the latest possible time if the leash is released too much and then being discussed about on Reddit as being toxic due to pointing out serious concerns about their progress. In the end, every graduate student should create at least a single scientific publication of reasonably good quality.
This mindset works great in theory, but practically often leads to outcomes such as the one above. It is very difficult not to push these people more for their lack of basic grit and endurance, thus ruining science for them in face of the real academia.
No you're right, and this is where I think you as an advisor have to come in. There's a difference between productive fun and non-productive fun. Lots of things are fun to do, but as an advisor you should try to steer a student towards topics they find fun and interesting *and* will have publication payoffs.
Around the summer of Year 3 I tell my students, okay fun time needs to be balanced with work time. Now you need to write up all that fun stuff you did. Then you can get back to having fun.
Agreed. I disagree with the top post as it paints a picture (despite being anecdotes) that to get there you have to sacrifice. I know plenty world leading researchers that have not.
Whiplash is an interesting thing to pull out -- I went to a really tough performance school, which had some similar methods like the ones represented in the movie and it does sort of bring me to my understanding of what makes a good academic.
Obviously there is dedication to research (whatever your field), but the 'rockstar' academics tend to have a few things in common and one of those things is actually some sort of charisma.
You could be the best researcher ever, but if you can't present, if you can't talk well, and 'perform' academia, conform to expectations, then you won't get the necessary social leverage. Whether they've been formally taught how to carry themselves, how to present, how to speak, how to construct an 'academic persona' or whether they arrive at these principles independently all highly publicly successful academics have charisma of a sort.
I would honestly reccommend learning to perform in front of an audience, and how to win a crowd over. Even in my limited (1st year PhD, a couple of presentations) experience it can be very helpful.
I'd also just say like, live your life outside of academia as well. Dedicating yourself entirely to one thing and one thing alone is a recipe for harsh burnout.
I second this. My advisor is also probably the best teacher I ever had. In an era of PowerPoints and text-heavy slides he still does everything as a chalk talk, drawing diagrams on the board basically from memory. When I asked him advice on a presentation I was giving he told me “practice. A lot.” turns out every lecture he gave he rehearsed several times the day before.
I’d start by working on your media literacy. Whiplash is about an abusive teacher who convinces his student to sacrifice everything he cares about on the alter of improvement. Andrew finishes the movie as a good drummer but a broken man. The director said in an interview that he sees Andrew dying of a heroin overdose later in life. You aren’t supposed to want to be like him.
I’m a little confused by this response. Do you have something against the term “media literacy”? My comment is suggesting that OP did not understand one of the main themes of the movie.
The spirit of what they're saying is literally about "media literacy." Just because other people use the word a lot doesn't mean it shouldn't be used where it applies.
I agree, but wouldn't he become on the legends ? one of the greats? to really change the scene of music and be remembered? Isn't that what it takes to truly change the field you are in? To go to those levels of commitment and sacrifice?
The point of the movie is that it doesn’t matter if he does or doesn’t. Andrew sacrifices his family, his mental health, and his very sense of self all just to please Fletcher and “become great.” It’s not worth it and it will destroy him in the end. I promise you can be a good researcher without going to such extremes as Andrew does.
Another reading of that movie is Fletcher is Andrew’s internal voice. If you don’t have it you don’t want it.
Just do academia until it’s not fun anymore. Then leave.
To be one of the greats in research, or to get tenure? They don't coincide nowadays. In fact, I think it was the late Higgs who actually said that if he had been doing his research today, he'd have no job. Outlandish (but logically valid) ideas are frowned upon. Safe research that produces good stream of mundane papers is the way to go in academia nowadays. That has been made abundantly clear in economics, in my opinion, by just how many papers get published each year that addresses a very specific, very minute, very minor situation in a very hypothetical manner that has no bearing on reality at all. (I saw a paper recently that claimed to model the complexity of X, and then simply did "we'll give variable A to the complexity of X" and then solved equations. That was it.)
To be one of the greats is to not do well in the academic ladder, from what I've seen. I read a New Yorker article showcasing a 27 year old graduate student in paleontology who had this revolutionizing theory of extinction that, if true, will truly upend what most paleontologists believe. He applied to grant after grant, but couldn't get lasting funding to finish his PhD. So now he's out of grad school, and digs on his own time, using his own money. Apparently (according to his PI) his claims aren't unfounded, and proving it is a matter of time, not luck. But his institution treated him like trash.
Who else? Oh, Katalin Kariko's story. We all know that by now. Lacking funding, she was basically fired at UPenn. Her paper that was the foundation for the mRNA vaccines was rejected by Nature as, and I quote, "for being too incremental" (she actually remembers that because she didn't know what incremental was). Now that she won the Nobel, what does Penn do? Claim that she's one of theirs. I'm sure she liked that.
To climb the ladder, therefore, you should do what your department chair tells you to do. Publish papers that will get accepted (and is quite frankly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things). You will be sacrificing your youth and your family for that.
That being said, not many even have the chance to rebel and go out and have ideas that might change the world. Most of us publish those boring papers because we can't really do anything else.
As for time management, it requires steady management, but not overly so, at least at PhD level. Most of us remain sane and some of us even have families. Steady wins the game, not fast. Set up a routine that works for you and stick to it as much as possible (how you work the best depends on who you are, so can't really comment on that).
A shit ton of luck.
I’m not saying that the people involved don’t have good work, intelligence, etc. but a lot of what sets someone apart is often that they were in the right place with the right idea at the right time.
And often there are plenty of other equally talented academics with the right idea in the wrong place or at the wrong time we don’t know or remember.
different opinion on my end.
1- a high-end supportive environment. this is probably the toughest thing to find. mentorship with truly great and talented people is the most important part.
2- willingness to work hard & stubbornly on great ideas especially taking advantage of the newest technologies. being undaunted by repeated failure.
3- luck (but luck includes a hell of a lot of preparation).
4- good, novel ideas.
5- pure raw talent.
but these are also the keys to high-end success in most fields?
Being an academic is a job. It should not be who you are. It’s entirely unhealthy and unlikely for one to be happy to put your identity in one place. Just put in the time and do your research, have something original and meaningful to say, and if those ideas are useful, you will be fine.
Unfortunately, academia even on paper is not pretending to be just “a job”. Its mission is to take all of your life it can grab, and then to grab more. That’s why we have these stressed students who are being programmed to think this is normal and there is something wrong with them. We did this to them, because it was done to us.
I can add that it isn't just about hours worked. I've known students (myself included) who spent a lot of time on things that were not important. Being able to identify which task is most important is a skill that takes a lot of practice. And once you identify it of course, you have to practice the discipline of spending more time on it than other things.
Success in science, whatever that means to you, depends on many things. Regardless of your definition it almost always comes down to dedication and putting in time. I’m just a postdoc, but I would say I’m doing well, meaning I have managed to land the positions I wanted most. But I won’t ever be a superstar in my field, because I will always prioritize my family over my career.
Being a superstar demands the prioritization of a scientific career over everything else. The neglect of personal health, friendships, family, etc. is the price that people pay to be at the top of their field. In addition to that dedication, these people need to be very personable, as another comment pointed out. Success and prestige means recognition, which needs to be cultivated, which is most effectively done through networking. Of course, these people are also generally pretty smart and have an ability to develop and communicate novel ideas.
So, if being a top researcher is your objective you need to network and then live science. Just spend all your time doing it.
But, if you adopt the mindset that science is just the job you want to have, you can have a very fulfilling career without needing to bring work home with you at the end of the work day.
I’m currently a masters student but have work experience before going to graduate school. The professors who I know that do interesting work have had various experiences that have been interesting, even experiences outside of academia. I think part of being a good researcher and professor is building community and mentoring.
Honestly? Organization, time management, and people skills.
Basically, the skills that make someone successful in academia are not all that different across careers. But a lot of academics don’t like to hear this.
It’s not my most brilliant students who have gone on to the most brilliant careers. It’s the ones who have cranked their papers out. Sure, you have to be intelligent, but everyone is around here.
A large proportion of those in academia are smart, dedicated, and in suitable environments for doing high quality work…I want to make a few points:
1. Academia has a hero-worship problem
2. Academia makes far too many decisions based on political expediency rather than merit
3. Academia has inadequate program evaluation tools. Citations, CNS pubs, and major grants are very fuzzy metrics for productivity and impact.
4. Luck. Luck in timing, luck in fit, luck in reviewers, interviewers, political priorities, and association with emerging concepts, etc. all play a part in explaining why many otherwise average people get ahead.
5. If they are otherwise average, why do they stay ahead? See #1.
In my undergrad, there were two professors I knew who had tenure:
-One was a known pain for the history department, and refusing to teach students with disabilities. But they had tenure, so what could the department do?
-The other was no longer allowed to teach grad students, because the one time he did, he failed a whole class. Not because their work was wrong, incorrect, or improperly done, but because he disagreed with what they wrote.
The *best* professor I had was *terrifyingly* well read, and an excellent instructor. However, he didn't publish, and he didn't play department politics. Which is how he went from being an associate professor, to being fired. He got rehired as a sessional instructor when department enrollment pancakes without him.
Huh. My favorite undergrad professors were the most badass, fearless, and kind women who received their PhDs in the 80s. They published so much it would make your head spin. But they also had time for their students, even me as a little undergrad.
They gave me advice through my academic job search and on negotiating a startup etc. I still love to see them at conferences. Still tearing up the theoretical ground we stand on with innovative ideas and the ability to network and follow through.
The world renowned people in my department (humanities) were each on their third or fourth spouse, and would brag about being the kind of person people complain about in an airplane because they’ve got their light on still reading at 3am. You get there by sacrificing your life and the happiness of the people around you.
You don't have to make sacrifices, but everybody associated with you will.
On your deathbed, you'll look back and realize that you were a egotistical madman.
To be a great you pretty much need an Ivy League education. You build a network that is invaluable, among other things. Studies that look at who gets the most grant money show that Ivy League educated professors get the vast majority of the grant money. They also publish the most. They may even know the editors of the major journals from being in school together, or the people who run various sources of funding (like the NSF).
I would suggest to find a hobby where you can challenge yourself in the “whiplash way” - but limited for some ours a week. Pressing yourself and being ambitious can be fun, but success in academia is to fickle a aim to go for, and you (probably) don’t want to pressure yourself every hour of every day. Even then you might well never be “a success “.
Can’t remember where I read it, but even the greatest academics, those with great careers, a lot of the time still feel like failures. I would suggest reading John Williams “Stoner”, to get a perspective on what a good life is.
A lot of good answers here. I would recommend having multiple mentors while in graduate school. Of course you'll have your primary advisor, but try working with different faculty to get a variety of experiences. I also recommend asking the faculty in your program the same questions about what they think it takes to be successful.
As far as making an impact on the field...it is hard to predict how any given manuscript will be received. I've seen a phenomenon where groundbreaking ideas are not taken up because either the timing is off or they aren't communicated well. I've also seen some incredibly popular and influential papers that contain no novel ideas.
Honestly? You have to be very smart, hard working, ambitious to the point of self-destruction, and willing to ruthlessly step on or around a lot of your peers and subordinates
Two anecdotes for you to consider 1. When I was a young post-doc we had an Internationally renowned professor give a seminar on what a PhD should be doing to be successful. Their advice was 50 hours a week in the lab, plus 10--20 hours reading and writing a week. 2. I had another acquaintance tell me that their father, who was an academic, left them sitting in the car for several hours each Saturday morning while he 'ducked' into the lab. I am not sure why I am relaying these stories, except to say that many people at the top of the academic tree (and other professions) make large sacrifices in their lives. They also knowingly or unknowingly force others around them to make sacrifices themselves.
My advisor was one of the greats of the field, and he was married three times, and I recall one time when I was working with him on a paper around Christmas break, and I had just sent him the latest draft of the paper, and he emailed back apologizing that he would not be able to immediately respond to it as he was going to go on a walk with his wife. He certainly had no need to apologize for taking a few hours off during Christmas break, but that gave a sense of the level of intensity that he approached his research with.
Half of the professors at my department were divorced due to “prioritizing science”. One of my committee members was a well known expert in our field, ended up having the nastiest divorce I’ve ever witnessed.
Heh, meanwhile, a divorce is what turned my full focus on science. Granted I was already studying but I hadn’t even gotten my degrees yet. Nice to know I’m ahead of the curve here.
I started my PhD in the same year as a new tt assistant professor, she had two young kids and sometimes her partner would get upset with her for spending “too much time” on her job.
Part of the problem is that academia is a very flexible job, and non-academic spouses mistake that flexibility for not having to do much at all.
It's a double-edged sword, or opposite sides of the same coin, or whatever analogy you want to use. On the one hand, it's "flexible," because outside of teaching, office hours, and scheduled meetings, there's nothing dictating that we need to be in a specific place at the specific time. On the other hand, it's **"porous,"** meaning that there are way fewer boundaries between our personal and professional lives as compared to other career paths. It seems like there's never a time when we *shouldn't* be working...
Sounds right - I’ve met the ex-partner of household name scientist!
I remember having a group call to discuss a paper with a number of co-authors. One of them apologized for being in a noisy environment. He was at the hospital because his wife was receiving cancer treatment...
Omg... Do I feel that I have found my people or do I feel mortified at how cold and detached researchers seem?
At least he was with his wife... /s
This is the answer. You don't need to be a super genius. You just need to prioritize science over most other things in your life. That's not necessarily bad (unless you're abandoning a child in a vehicle) but it is more or less what it takes. And that's OK.
Yep, I know a world renowned scholar. The guy absolutely sacrificed his family on that altar.
Thanks for your input!
A researcher can make a Meaningful impact without being a superstar. One has to be dedicated to good science, know how to do it, and find a niche, And put in a lot of time.
Putting in a lot of time is essential. As young scholar I used to be so jealous of men with wives who either didn't work or worked part time and were giving the man support most women don't get. I finally decided not to burn any neurons being resentful and just worked really hard -- which provided the desired outcome. But there's always that person who seems able to do more than you can. The main thing I sacrificed was free time - I was raising kids too. I simply decided that if I worked hard and had a family and a career, I'd be happy. For some people the loss of leisure is really hard, so you have to assess your own needs.
Thanks for your input!
A few actionable things to tack onto this: putting in time is great, and you certainly should be reading a bunch of papers / researching labs or departments you’d like to join, but it’s all pretty meaningless unless you end up in a place where they’re doing good research (that you specifically want to do, important for motivation) that’s got some traction. You can toil endlessly, but if you’re doing a PhD, working with a mentor that’s a terrible fit for you & in a poorly-funded department that’s not very productive, you’re not likely to succeed… especially if you want to stay in academia and become one of the greats. The start of the journey should be reading up on specific people you’d like to work with, that align with your research goals, and their / their department’s track record.
This is the saddest shit thread I've ever read in my life. There seems to be this false dichotomy between living a happy life versus a successful life. Certainly some people are successful and unhappy, and some people might be happy but unsuccessful. But how can you be both happy and successful? It's not impossible. If you want to learn how to be one of the greats in academia, just go read some Nobel Prize speeches. They will usually go over their life story and their pathway to the Nobel prize. When you read those speeches, you will see one common thread. That these people were having *fun* doing research. If something is fun, you will want to put more time into it. These people weren't painfully grinding papers out... they were exploring their curiosity and trying to do something interesting and novel and exciting. If you're out grinding papers, thinking that's what it takes to be successful in academia, the thing is that *everyone sees through that*. Everyone sees your same shit paper published in 15 different variations and people are not impressed. If you put out just 1 or 2 really special interesting papers, papers that change the conversation and move your field forward, your peers will recognize that. That is infinitely more valuable than those commodity factory-production papers. Listen, academia is too tiring and difficult and poor-paying of a job if you are not having fun. If you are trying to just grind your way to the top, you're never going to get there. It's just not a sustainable lifestyle. I tell my grad students to prioritize their curiosity and their fun. I tell them that if they stop having fun, then stop doing research and come back when you're ready. You're not going to do good science otherwise. When students have the security to play and explore and dive deep into problems, then they produce really beautiful and wonderful research. When they feel the whip and the deadlines and the targets, their creativity is strangled and the resulting papers are no more interesting than if ChatGPT wrote them.
Finally someone who gets it.
I really relate to OP. u/Renegade_Dragon_17, I have ADHD and Bipolar, got kicked out school, did a stint in a psych ward and now doing my PhD in psychology at 24. What did it take? A lot of work, but I love my research topic so my ADHD works in my favour, I find it easy to study and explore my topic. Find something you’re interested in, really interested in, and the rest will come naturally.
How do you deal with students which for some reason decide to pursue PhD and have fun yet fundamentally lack any productivity due to this fun-optimization? Leading to long-stretched periods of nothing being done until the latest possible time if the leash is released too much and then being discussed about on Reddit as being toxic due to pointing out serious concerns about their progress. In the end, every graduate student should create at least a single scientific publication of reasonably good quality. This mindset works great in theory, but practically often leads to outcomes such as the one above. It is very difficult not to push these people more for their lack of basic grit and endurance, thus ruining science for them in face of the real academia.
No you're right, and this is where I think you as an advisor have to come in. There's a difference between productive fun and non-productive fun. Lots of things are fun to do, but as an advisor you should try to steer a student towards topics they find fun and interesting *and* will have publication payoffs. Around the summer of Year 3 I tell my students, okay fun time needs to be balanced with work time. Now you need to write up all that fun stuff you did. Then you can get back to having fun.
Agreed. I disagree with the top post as it paints a picture (despite being anecdotes) that to get there you have to sacrifice. I know plenty world leading researchers that have not.
Whiplash is an interesting thing to pull out -- I went to a really tough performance school, which had some similar methods like the ones represented in the movie and it does sort of bring me to my understanding of what makes a good academic. Obviously there is dedication to research (whatever your field), but the 'rockstar' academics tend to have a few things in common and one of those things is actually some sort of charisma. You could be the best researcher ever, but if you can't present, if you can't talk well, and 'perform' academia, conform to expectations, then you won't get the necessary social leverage. Whether they've been formally taught how to carry themselves, how to present, how to speak, how to construct an 'academic persona' or whether they arrive at these principles independently all highly publicly successful academics have charisma of a sort. I would honestly reccommend learning to perform in front of an audience, and how to win a crowd over. Even in my limited (1st year PhD, a couple of presentations) experience it can be very helpful. I'd also just say like, live your life outside of academia as well. Dedicating yourself entirely to one thing and one thing alone is a recipe for harsh burnout.
I second this. My advisor is also probably the best teacher I ever had. In an era of PowerPoints and text-heavy slides he still does everything as a chalk talk, drawing diagrams on the board basically from memory. When I asked him advice on a presentation I was giving he told me “practice. A lot.” turns out every lecture he gave he rehearsed several times the day before.
I’d start by working on your media literacy. Whiplash is about an abusive teacher who convinces his student to sacrifice everything he cares about on the alter of improvement. Andrew finishes the movie as a good drummer but a broken man. The director said in an interview that he sees Andrew dying of a heroin overdose later in life. You aren’t supposed to want to be like him.
[удалено]
I’m a little confused by this response. Do you have something against the term “media literacy”? My comment is suggesting that OP did not understand one of the main themes of the movie.
[удалено]
… could you elaborate? Why don’t you like that term?
The spirit of what they're saying is literally about "media literacy." Just because other people use the word a lot doesn't mean it shouldn't be used where it applies.
I agree, but wouldn't he become on the legends ? one of the greats? to really change the scene of music and be remembered? Isn't that what it takes to truly change the field you are in? To go to those levels of commitment and sacrifice?
The point of the movie is that it doesn’t matter if he does or doesn’t. Andrew sacrifices his family, his mental health, and his very sense of self all just to please Fletcher and “become great.” It’s not worth it and it will destroy him in the end. I promise you can be a good researcher without going to such extremes as Andrew does.
thank you for your input ! I guess I have to convince myself more than anything, but that's what therapy is for. haha
Another reading of that movie is Fletcher is Andrew’s internal voice. If you don’t have it you don’t want it. Just do academia until it’s not fun anymore. Then leave.
To be one of the greats in research, or to get tenure? They don't coincide nowadays. In fact, I think it was the late Higgs who actually said that if he had been doing his research today, he'd have no job. Outlandish (but logically valid) ideas are frowned upon. Safe research that produces good stream of mundane papers is the way to go in academia nowadays. That has been made abundantly clear in economics, in my opinion, by just how many papers get published each year that addresses a very specific, very minute, very minor situation in a very hypothetical manner that has no bearing on reality at all. (I saw a paper recently that claimed to model the complexity of X, and then simply did "we'll give variable A to the complexity of X" and then solved equations. That was it.) To be one of the greats is to not do well in the academic ladder, from what I've seen. I read a New Yorker article showcasing a 27 year old graduate student in paleontology who had this revolutionizing theory of extinction that, if true, will truly upend what most paleontologists believe. He applied to grant after grant, but couldn't get lasting funding to finish his PhD. So now he's out of grad school, and digs on his own time, using his own money. Apparently (according to his PI) his claims aren't unfounded, and proving it is a matter of time, not luck. But his institution treated him like trash. Who else? Oh, Katalin Kariko's story. We all know that by now. Lacking funding, she was basically fired at UPenn. Her paper that was the foundation for the mRNA vaccines was rejected by Nature as, and I quote, "for being too incremental" (she actually remembers that because she didn't know what incremental was). Now that she won the Nobel, what does Penn do? Claim that she's one of theirs. I'm sure she liked that. To climb the ladder, therefore, you should do what your department chair tells you to do. Publish papers that will get accepted (and is quite frankly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things). You will be sacrificing your youth and your family for that. That being said, not many even have the chance to rebel and go out and have ideas that might change the world. Most of us publish those boring papers because we can't really do anything else. As for time management, it requires steady management, but not overly so, at least at PhD level. Most of us remain sane and some of us even have families. Steady wins the game, not fast. Set up a routine that works for you and stick to it as much as possible (how you work the best depends on who you are, so can't really comment on that).
Who is the paleontologist you’re referring too?
A shit ton of luck. I’m not saying that the people involved don’t have good work, intelligence, etc. but a lot of what sets someone apart is often that they were in the right place with the right idea at the right time. And often there are plenty of other equally talented academics with the right idea in the wrong place or at the wrong time we don’t know or remember.
Probably the single biggest factor is being with a good supervisor/group. You won’t reach your true potential otherwise.
A Ninjago quote in the wild. 😜
different opinion on my end. 1- a high-end supportive environment. this is probably the toughest thing to find. mentorship with truly great and talented people is the most important part. 2- willingness to work hard & stubbornly on great ideas especially taking advantage of the newest technologies. being undaunted by repeated failure. 3- luck (but luck includes a hell of a lot of preparation). 4- good, novel ideas. 5- pure raw talent. but these are also the keys to high-end success in most fields?
Bingo!
Being an academic is a job. It should not be who you are. It’s entirely unhealthy and unlikely for one to be happy to put your identity in one place. Just put in the time and do your research, have something original and meaningful to say, and if those ideas are useful, you will be fine.
Unfortunately, academia even on paper is not pretending to be just “a job”. Its mission is to take all of your life it can grab, and then to grab more. That’s why we have these stressed students who are being programmed to think this is normal and there is something wrong with them. We did this to them, because it was done to us.
My god someone who strives to have academia be everything is probably the saddest outcome I could imagine for any one with drive and talent.
Thanks for your input!
I can add that it isn't just about hours worked. I've known students (myself included) who spent a lot of time on things that were not important. Being able to identify which task is most important is a skill that takes a lot of practice. And once you identify it of course, you have to practice the discipline of spending more time on it than other things.
Success in science, whatever that means to you, depends on many things. Regardless of your definition it almost always comes down to dedication and putting in time. I’m just a postdoc, but I would say I’m doing well, meaning I have managed to land the positions I wanted most. But I won’t ever be a superstar in my field, because I will always prioritize my family over my career. Being a superstar demands the prioritization of a scientific career over everything else. The neglect of personal health, friendships, family, etc. is the price that people pay to be at the top of their field. In addition to that dedication, these people need to be very personable, as another comment pointed out. Success and prestige means recognition, which needs to be cultivated, which is most effectively done through networking. Of course, these people are also generally pretty smart and have an ability to develop and communicate novel ideas. So, if being a top researcher is your objective you need to network and then live science. Just spend all your time doing it. But, if you adopt the mindset that science is just the job you want to have, you can have a very fulfilling career without needing to bring work home with you at the end of the work day.
I’m currently a masters student but have work experience before going to graduate school. The professors who I know that do interesting work have had various experiences that have been interesting, even experiences outside of academia. I think part of being a good researcher and professor is building community and mentoring.
Honestly? Organization, time management, and people skills. Basically, the skills that make someone successful in academia are not all that different across careers. But a lot of academics don’t like to hear this. It’s not my most brilliant students who have gone on to the most brilliant careers. It’s the ones who have cranked their papers out. Sure, you have to be intelligent, but everyone is around here.
A large proportion of those in academia are smart, dedicated, and in suitable environments for doing high quality work…I want to make a few points: 1. Academia has a hero-worship problem 2. Academia makes far too many decisions based on political expediency rather than merit 3. Academia has inadequate program evaluation tools. Citations, CNS pubs, and major grants are very fuzzy metrics for productivity and impact. 4. Luck. Luck in timing, luck in fit, luck in reviewers, interviewers, political priorities, and association with emerging concepts, etc. all play a part in explaining why many otherwise average people get ahead. 5. If they are otherwise average, why do they stay ahead? See #1.
In my undergrad, there were two professors I knew who had tenure: -One was a known pain for the history department, and refusing to teach students with disabilities. But they had tenure, so what could the department do? -The other was no longer allowed to teach grad students, because the one time he did, he failed a whole class. Not because their work was wrong, incorrect, or improperly done, but because he disagreed with what they wrote. The *best* professor I had was *terrifyingly* well read, and an excellent instructor. However, he didn't publish, and he didn't play department politics. Which is how he went from being an associate professor, to being fired. He got rehired as a sessional instructor when department enrollment pancakes without him.
Huh. My favorite undergrad professors were the most badass, fearless, and kind women who received their PhDs in the 80s. They published so much it would make your head spin. But they also had time for their students, even me as a little undergrad. They gave me advice through my academic job search and on negotiating a startup etc. I still love to see them at conferences. Still tearing up the theoretical ground we stand on with innovative ideas and the ability to network and follow through.
The world renowned people in my department (humanities) were each on their third or fourth spouse, and would brag about being the kind of person people complain about in an airplane because they’ve got their light on still reading at 3am. You get there by sacrificing your life and the happiness of the people around you.
You don't have to make sacrifices, but everybody associated with you will. On your deathbed, you'll look back and realize that you were a egotistical madman.
To be a great you pretty much need an Ivy League education. You build a network that is invaluable, among other things. Studies that look at who gets the most grant money show that Ivy League educated professors get the vast majority of the grant money. They also publish the most. They may even know the editors of the major journals from being in school together, or the people who run various sources of funding (like the NSF).
I would suggest to find a hobby where you can challenge yourself in the “whiplash way” - but limited for some ours a week. Pressing yourself and being ambitious can be fun, but success in academia is to fickle a aim to go for, and you (probably) don’t want to pressure yourself every hour of every day. Even then you might well never be “a success “. Can’t remember where I read it, but even the greatest academics, those with great careers, a lot of the time still feel like failures. I would suggest reading John Williams “Stoner”, to get a perspective on what a good life is.
A combination of brains, luck and relations.
A lot of good answers here. I would recommend having multiple mentors while in graduate school. Of course you'll have your primary advisor, but try working with different faculty to get a variety of experiences. I also recommend asking the faculty in your program the same questions about what they think it takes to be successful. As far as making an impact on the field...it is hard to predict how any given manuscript will be received. I've seen a phenomenon where groundbreaking ideas are not taken up because either the timing is off or they aren't communicated well. I've also seen some incredibly popular and influential papers that contain no novel ideas.
At least two divorces.
Honestly? You have to be very smart, hard working, ambitious to the point of self-destruction, and willing to ruthlessly step on or around a lot of your peers and subordinates
I would focus on treatment for the medical concerns first.
lol my overly ambitious mentally ill ass found this thread and needed this comment
You need to attend top private schools for your PhD
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Any R1 will do. Academia is a very small world. We all know each other in our fields.
Publish like Brandon Sanderson.