

Falling Off The Ladder: How Not To Succeed In Academia - wallflower
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2011_02_04/caredit.a1100011

======
aridiculous
That was one hell of a downer to wake up to. I was in the sciences for a short
stint (behavioral neuroscience) and could see the drudgery and political
limitations from a mile away.

I made a very clear decision to put all that stuff on hold until I could
somehow get involved in the sciences privately. I suppose that might be a pie
in the sky thought, but it's better than filling out (scarcely granted) grant
proposals all day.

------
yummyfajitas
tl;dr: I failed because I stopped working hard and I was unambitious. And once
I got tenure, I thought I could slack off, play the cello, go horseback riding
and be a full time mom. But the system failed me too - it should have come up
with a way for me to not work hard, but keep my job.

~~~
dgabriel
I think her more important point is that to be a "successful," scientist, you
have to be a domineering, workaholic, self-promoter with connections. Perhaps
there are other ways to do science that don't push out brilliant people who
want broader lives.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I really doubt that there is a place in the world for lazy, unambitious
scientists.

Science productivity is nonlinear. Simple numerical example: if it takes you
20 hours/week just to keep up with the literature, teaching duties, etc, a
scientist who works 35 hours/week is only half as productive as one who works
50 hours/week.

Additionally, science is cumulative. Those extra hours you put in build up
your skills. This means that not only does the 50 hour/week scientist produce
2x as much as the 35 hour/week scientist, but his/her skills grow faster. So
after a year, the 50 hour/week scientist not only has twice as many productive
hours as the 35 hour/week scientist, but he/she also produces more per hour.

You may view the character traits exhibited by successful scientists as low
status or unappealing. But that doesn't mean they are unnecessary.

~~~
arethuza
"Science productivity is nonlinear." - any citations for that?

~~~
yummyfajitas
As I'm sure you are aware, it would be extremely difficult to define "science
productivity" as an objectively measurable quantity. So no, neither I nor
anyone else have citations related to this claim.

My claim is based primarily on inductive reasoning and personal experience. I
know quite a few good scientists, none of whom have any semblance of a work
life balance. And when I was a scientist, the job was as all consuming as
doing a startup.

~~~
arethuza
"it would be extremely difficult to define "science productivity" as an
objectively measurable quantity"

Stepping back from the original article, what I would say is that a lot of the
problems in academia are perhaps caused by inappropriate rewards systems based
on the idea that academic research productivity _can_ be measured over
reasonably short timescales.

I'd actually be more in favor of much less overt short term performance
evaluation for academics and accepting that some will, undoubtedly, squander
this privilege while others would, I believe, more than reward society for
this trust. Of course, this would probably be unacceptable politically as the
emphasis there is often to minimize the negatives rather than to maximize the
positives.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The problem is that the way the academic system is structured, the negatives
are large and the positives are small. Take the author of this article - she
was mistakenly given tenure, and she squandered 10-15 years of salary +
unspecified severance.

The solution is simple - eliminate tenure. Then you can take a risk on a
promising scientist - worst case, you fire him/her in a few years.

~~~
WWWWH
Er, she worked in the UK where tenure was abolished in the late 80's.

~~~
yummyfajitas
From the article:

"...I came home in 1989...to a _tenure-track job_ , running my own research
lab at a University of London institute, where I remained until the sad demise
of my career... _I got tenure_..."

~~~
WWWWH
Good point, I'd missed that.

All the same, I'm not sure how she was on the tenure track given that no UK
academic appointed (or promoted!) after 20 November 1987 has tenure. Perhaps
there is a more complex story with her date of appointment, or perhaps, given
that Science is a US publication, she is simplifying a tenure track equivalent
UK position for a US audience.

Reference for the legislation:
[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/part/IV/crosshea...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/part/IV/crossheading/academic-
tenure)

But this is a side issue (my fault, I started it!), I'd agree with your basic
point that tenure is a problem. Just, it's not the only problem and it wasn't
the problem in this case.

------
merraksh
_This just does not happen in the male-oriented world of science in which,
traditionally, dogs are keen to dine on dogs rather than share the bone
between them, so to speak._

That sounded a little sexist to me, though I wonder if she meant that a woman
with two children can't do as much science as a man in the same situation.

------
haecib
tldr, don't be lazy, fail to network, and insecure in your abilities to the
point where you stop trying.

Nothing specific to Academia there.

~~~
WWWWH
Is it not a little off to claim tl;dr and then call _her_ lazy?

~~~
Muzza
It's entirely possible for both the author and haecib to be lazy. (I
personally don't think the author came off as particularly lazy, though.)

~~~
haecib
I guess by lazy I mean, as the author put it, "I didn't work hard enough..."

And yes, it is entirely possible that I am lazy as well.

------
Charuru
Sounds like her biggest problem is this:

 _However, I was always hampered by self-doubt. My initial conviction --
essential for anyone who wants to make it as a scientist -- that I could
really make a difference, maybe even win a few prizes and get famous, eroded
when I realized that my brain was simply not wired like those of the phalanx
of Nobelists I met over the years; I was never going to be original enough to
be a star._

Seriously, what the hell does this mean. I believe this kind of confidence
problem could be fixed by better mentorship earlier in life and perhaps a
cultivation of a more hackerish mentality.

~~~
ebaysucks
It's also the wrong goal to begin with.

You should never worship what the price winners think, you should question it.

Also, you should care about ideas, not prices.

